The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Quote Robin
BTW, just in the news last week, Michael Behe, a prominent creationist and member of the aggressively fundamentalist 'Discovery Institute', was in the dock in Dover last week for the "Scopes II" trial during which he claimed that, by redefining 'science' himself so that it could include his own creationism, that astrology becomes a "science" too:

Could I gently point out that Michael Behe is a believer in Intelligent Design i.e. the design of life by forces unknown over an undefined period of time.
He is therefore certainly neither a “creationist“ nor a Creation Scientist.
In fact, the Intelligent Design Movement is a breakaway EVOLUTIONIST GROUP that is somewhere on the faith spectrum between atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists.
I actually admire the efforts of the Intelligent Design proponents to give some logical and intellectual credibility to evolution by at least recognising that the complexity of life and the extreme specificity of it’s design is such that it’s production cannot be accounted for by undirected physical processes.

It is quite ironic that the current Dover School court case in Harrisburg PA is being billed as a ‘contest between Creation and Evolution’ – when in fact it is merely a dispute among two different types of evolutionists – the ‘Moronic Design’ proponents who believe that muck just happened to evolve into Man and the ‘Intelligent Design’ proponents who believe that (an undefined) intelligence played some (undefined) part in the process.

According to the New Scientist article on the Dover School Case, the US National Academy of Sciences defines a scientific theory as “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the Natural World that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses.”
This very limited definition fails to add that it must also be precisely defined and repeatably testable using objectively verifiable means – otherwise nobody will know what they are talking about and whatever they may think they are talking about can never be proven.

However, if we use the above very limited definition of a scientific theory, evolution still fails miserably when compared even with it!!!!!

For example, what “facts, laws, inferences or tested hypotheses” indicate that muck could EVER evolve into Man.

Equally, what “facts, laws, inferences or tested hypotheses” can satisfactory answer any of the following valid scientific questions in relation to evolution?

1. Have we observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true?
2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?
3. If the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, evolutioists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do evolutionists not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligence AKA God?
4. If evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures. Why has not even ONE continuum ever been observed among either living or fossil creatures for a functioning useful structure?
5. Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman?
6. Why do our Y-chromosome sequences (which are inherited in the male line i.e. 100% from our fathers) show that all men are originally descended from ONE man?
7. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind?
8. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design of the observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are multiple orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems?
9. Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an ”accident of nature” – while they know that the super computers and gene sequencers that they had to use to decode it, were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design?
10. Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual?
11. Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time?
12. Any putative ‘evolving organism’ is statistically just as likely to be taking two “critical amino acid sequence” steps backwards for every one step forwards, as it is to be going the other way around. If ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage – how can a population “work up” to the correct critical amino acid sequence through “genetic drift” or Natural Selection ?
13. Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true?
14. How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”?
15. Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if “upwards and onwards” Evolution is in action out there?
16. With odds in excess of 10 to the power of 1,800,000,000 against the production of the nucleic acid sequence of the Human Genome by accident – how do you explain it’s existence using random chance Evolution when the number of electrons in the known universe are only 10 to the power of 82?
17. Why is it claimed that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a scientific mystery?
18. What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
19. Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
20. Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
21. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?


Quote The Atheist
I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism.

This is your LUCKY DAY!!!

I'm amazed that you haven’t met at least one Creation Scientist (on or offline) – there are many out there!!!!

Michael Behe certainly isn’t one – BUT I AM!!!

BTW did you know that God doesn’t BELIEVE in Atheists?!!!!

In fact, Jesus Christ died so that YOU TOO could spend eternity with Him in Heaven. All you need to do is to stop believing in the plainly ridiculous idea that people are ultimately descended from muck, repent of your sins and believe on the ONLY person who can save you, Jesus Christ.

I too used be an evolutionist.
I was lost, but now I have found Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savour.

Over and Out!!

you guys are so off the mark with your fairly reasonable scientific argument then followed up by your 'jesus is your salvation' nonsense. Funny!

Danno wrote:

all!!! Now, The Bible is Jesus book, right? And if you choose to believe in Evolution, sure you are contradicting that very first passage, eh? That renders you not fully accepting the truth of Jesus.

Bible - Author Jesus? The bible is a selection of texts by people who are/were the power that be in christianity, so its not really the word of God, more the words of God as selected by man. Not the worlds best catholic here but it always strikes me as weird when people try to apply a book as old as the bible to modern day science.

Quote Robin
Actually, why don't you try over in the biology forum, since I suppose, strictly speaking, biology is a biological matter:

In actual fact, my comments about evolution were in response to YOUR statement in relation to Dr Michael Behe that he was a creationist.

In any event, this thread is in part a discussion about ‘origins’ – which by definition touches upon both faith (in the case of evolution) and science (in the case of Creation Science). Both the Christianity Forum and the Biology Forum are therefore equally suitable sites to host this debate.

ALL discussion of evolution has been banned on the sceptics forum (amazing stuff for an outfit that supposedly prides themselves on questioning EVERYTHING) – but biologists are quite free to ‘teleport’ themselves and their viewpoints onto this thread if they so wish.


Quote athena 2000
I don't recall having to give up mucky evolutionary ideas had anything to do with Christian repentance and salvation

You are correct that strictly speaking (as St. Paul confirmed to his jailer in Acts16:31) all that you need to do is “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (NIV).

However, I would classify the repudiation of a belief in ‘muck to Man evolution’ and the acceptance of II Tim 3:16 that “All Scripture (including Genesis 1 & 2) is God-breathed” as being reasonable manifestations (even if they are not actual causes) of a person’s Christianity.


Quote Asiaprod
He (God) did not write the Bible, you can attribute the concepts and laws to him, but the bible was written by ordinary people.
I am an editor, people often misunderstand the meaning and write the wrong word down, not to mention the translation problems faced when putting this great work together. I think you need to give a little leeway to the idea that the bible is correctly written down word for word.

Jesus Christ confirmed both the veracity and the importance of EVERY WORD in the Bible in Mt 4:4 when He said “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God.” (NIV)
The fact that ALL SCRIPTURE (i.e. the entire Bible) is “God breathed” is also confirmed in II Tim 3:16.

The Creator God of the Universe is quite capable of ensuring that “the bible was correctly written down word for word” (by ordinary people) – and He has PERSONALLY assured us that this is the case in Mt 4:4 above.

God is also more than capable of ensuring that His Word isn’t subsequently corrupted by sinful Mankind and this is confirmed in Prov 30:5-6 which states that “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you AND PROVE YOU A LIAR”.


Quote Asiaprod
We have a saying in my industry, unless the author signs off on the final product, it ain`t the final product. I don`t see God`s signature.

If you are a Christian (i.e. a person saved by faith in Jesus Christ) you will have already committed yourself to believing everything that Jesus has said – including the fact that He is God and that He ‘signed off’ on the veracity of the Bible – see Mt 4:4 above.


Quote Asiaprod
I am an editor, people often misunderstand the meaning and write the wrong word down

The fact that we cannot believe everything that we read in newspapers, is certainly no reason to doubt the infallible Word of God in the Bible!!!!


Quote Green Hell
Bible - Author Jesus? The bible is a selection of texts by people who are/were the power that be in christianity, so its not really the word of God, more the words of God as selected by man.

See my answers to Asiaprod above.

Quote Green Hell
Not the worlds best catholic here but it always strikes me as weird when people try to apply a book as old as the bible to modern day science.

God and His Word are ETERNAL and INFALLIBLE – “modern day science” is neither!!!


Quote jtsuited
you guys are so off the mark with your fairly reasonable scientific argument then followed up by your 'jesus is your salvation' nonsense. Funny!

I am glad that I brought a smile to your face!!!

I am a man of both faith and science.

Robin raised a scientific issue and I gave a scientific answer.

The Atheist proclaimed a belief in the non-existence of God – and indeed Creation Scientists. I made a faith-based response in reply to these proclamations.

Quote The Atheist
You're not wrong - just check out the spirituality and humanities forum today - it's like all my secular Christmases' have come at once!

Your belief that all of your “secular CHRISTMASES have come at once” reminds me of the story I once heard about an Irish Atheist who blamed God for all of his problems!!!!


Quote The Atheist
Quote J C
BTW did you know that God doesn’t BELIEVE in Atheists?!!!!
I wouldn't blame him - if I can't see him - he can't see me!

God knows ALL about you because He is omnipresent and omniscient.

Just because you don’t see God doesn’t mean that He can’t see you!!!

There are many invisible forces in the Universe (both temporal and spiritual) that we cannot see – but which are nonetheless very real indeed!!!!


Quote The Atheist
I'm quite impressed with some of those intelligent design arguments. Some I've come across before, some are new. Food for thought without a doubt. My problem is the leap from accepting Intelligent Design, to defining that designer in our comfortable human terms.

Are you sure that you are a REAL Atheist – and not just an IRISH one?!!!

I can assure you that the God of the Bible is the only God that I am aware of who ‘fits the bill’ when it comes to creating life and indeed the Universe.

The God of the Bible is the only God that I know of who has claimed to be a transcendent personal God who single-handedly created the Universe and all life therein in six days. He is also the only God that I am aware of who ‘fits’ every one of following proofs for His existence and many more besides:-

1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.
2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.
3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.
4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.
6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God

He also happens to be the only God that I am aware of who loved you and me personally so much that He humbled Himself to take on our Human nature and to suffer the most horrible death imaginable in perfect atonement for ALL of our sins. All that He asks of us is that we turn to Him and repent of our sins – which is literally ‘nothing’ in comparison with what He has done for us.


Quote The Atheist
If I wander down the street and find a cheesecake lying on the ground, will I say: "my wife makes cheesecake - she MUST have made this!" Or do I say: "Okay, I know that somebody made this but I have no way of knowing who - especially as there are many people who claim to make cheesecake".

There is only ONE God who has even claimed to be CAPABLE of making this particular “cheesecake” (the Universe and all life therein)!!!!


Quote The Atheist
I'm content in the ignorance. On the contrary a solution that I feel has been reached by jumping to conclusions gives me no satisfaction whatsoever.

Nobody should be happy in ignorance - as a Creation Scientist I get a great “buzz” from reviewing all of the latest scientific breakthroughs in proving the existence of God and His Special Creation of the Universe and all life therein in six days!!!!


Quote Robin
Ah, JC, you're such a dote!

And you’re also a wonderful Human Being yourself Robin.

Jesus Christ loves you more than anybody else possibly could – and all you need to do is to believe on Him and repent of your sins.

He is standing at your door and knocking!!!

conversely

1. have we observed any direct Godly actions ? If there was a God surely we would see manifestations in line with those in the Bible ?

2. If earth DNA is so complex, then surely the DNA needed to create an omnipotent intelligence would be even more complex ? (and therefore even less likely)
3. if Seti were to pick up anything resembling intelligence, wouldn't that contradict the Biblical interpretation of the universe anyway?

etc. etc.

I think there is a hugely arrogant in the arguments made by creationists when they use current scientific abilities as being the zenith of human technology / learning. Of course science can't demonstrate or disprove the ability for life to spontaneously generate, or accurately measure genetic / evolutionary change in the miniscule timespans humans live for etc. As a species we've only been around for a insignificant time (whether millions or thousands of years) we understand an equally insignicant part of the big picture. Given the speed with which we have developed as a civilization, it may be millions more years before either humans (or our then evolved equivalent).

JC:
6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God

To me that means we just haven't seen it happen yet or wouldn't be able to see / understand it even if we were looking at it.

Quote growler
1. have we observed any direct Godly actions ? If there was a God surely we would see manifestations in line with those in the Bible ?

2. If earth DNA is so complex, then surely the DNA needed to create an omnipotent intelligence would be even more complex ? (and therefore even less likely)

3. if Seti were to pick up anything resembling intelligence, wouldn't that contradict the Biblical interpretation of the universe anyway?

1. God’s actions in the World are miracles – usually performed by His angels. We are currently enjoying the period of God’s grace before He decides to move in judgement upon the World and it’s inhabitants. He is therefore only INDIRECTLY manifesting His presence in the World at the moment. Whenever He does decide to DIRECTLY manifest His presence in the World, we will ALL know about it!!!

2. DNA is NOT a necessary pre-requisite for intelligent life. Demons and angels of great intelligence populate the spiritual realm and neither entities contain DNA.
The transcendent Creator God of the Universe logically HAD to work outside of the currently observed Laws of the Universe to create it in the first place and therefore His ‘origin’ is scientifically inaccessible – and that is where faith must of necessity take over.
Evolutionists have faith in the unfounded belief that NOTHING blew up in the Big Bang.
Creation Scientists believe that a supremely intelligent pre-existing God created it all.

3. ET intelligence is already indicated by the Bible – demons and angels are both forms of extraterrestrial life.


Quote growler
Of course science can't demonstrate or disprove the ability for life to spontaneously generate, or accurately measure genetic / evolutionary change in the miniscule timespans humans live for etc. As a species we've only been around for a insignificant time (whether millions or thousands of years) we understand an equally insignificant part of the big picture. Given the speed with which we have developed as a civilization, it may be millions more years before either humans (or our then evolved equivalent).

I agree with most of your sentiments and Creation Scientists also share your belief that the more that one knows, the more one is humbled by the realisation that we actually know very little.
However, this shouldn’t stop us trying to find out more – and that is what science is all about.
Science however, doesn’t have a monopoly on wisdom or indeed knowledge and that is where philosophy and indeed Divine Revelation also comes in.


Quote Robin
I just knew that I must have misread and misunderstood that incriminating sentence in which they (the Discovery Institute) said that they were (creationists)!

Let’s examine the so-called “incriminating sentence” again Robin.

“To replace materialistic explanations with the THEISTIC understanding that nature and human beings are CREATED by God.”

Please note the presence of the word THEISTIC as in THEISTIC evolution. Please also note that theistic evolutionists routinely use the words “CREATION BY GOD” and what they mean is that evolution was how this “CREATION BY GOD” was achieved.

In general, theistic evolutionists are Christians or other monotheists who interpret Genesis as a description of how life supposedly evolved on Earth – and so they occupy the farthest point away from neo-Darwinian evolutionists on the evolutionary ‘faith spectrum’ so to speak.

Between these two extremes of evolutionary thought are the ‘Intelligent Design’ proponents. In general they believe in evolution but they do not define what ‘intelligence’ did the designing (unlike the theistic evolutionists who generally claim that it was the God of the Bible that did it). Because they don’t claim that the God of the Bible did the designing, the Intelligent Designers are therefore closer to the agnostic evolutionists than they are to the Christian theistic evolutionists.

The ‘origins’ Faith Spectrum is as follows:
Atheistic evolutionists, agnostic evolutionists, intelligent designers, theistic evolutionists and creationists.

The “fuss” at the Smithsonian was caused by the challenge of ‘Intelligent Design’ to Atheistic Evolutionists and their dogmatic faith in atheism i.e. their deeply held belief that there is no transcendent God or indeed any other “intelligence” involved in the evolution of the Universe.

The ‘over-the-top’ reaction of the “High Priests” of neo-Darwinian evolution proves that they are quite irrational creatures when their blind faith in atheism is rationally challenged even by one of their own (Prof Richard Sternberg). I shudder to think what they would do with a Creation Scientist if they got their hands on him/her!!!!

In any event, such suppression of academic freedom is quite reprehensible.

I don’t personally share any of Prof Richard Steinberg’s philosophical opinions and indeed I also differ quite sharply with Dr Stephen C. Meyer on many issues, but I respect them both as “world class” scientists WHO SHOULD NOT BE TREATED LIKE THIS.
Any scientist worthy of the name, should declare their opposition to this travesty and Prof Richard Steinberg should immediately be given a chair for his proven academic rigour and progressive tolerance of alternative views – which is after all HOW science actually makes progress!!!!.

Quote Robin
Anyhow, as I've now become a creationist, having been swayed by JC's lucid (if slightly unreadable) prose

Welcome aboard Robin, I knew that the ‘penny would eventually drop’ and being an engineer yourself, you would logically conclude that muck could NEVER evolve into Man – just like it doesn’t spontaneously ‘morph’ into cars, aeroplanes or even buildings – because it simply doesn’t have the POTENTIAL to do so.

When I lost my faith in evolution, I stopped telling people that I was descended from a Slimeball, and amazingly their opinion of me greatly improved.

Quote Robin
Take something heavy in your right hand and drop it onto the floor, and note the angle at which it hits the floor.

Robin, I appreciate that you have the “enthusiasm of a convert” but this experiment of yours can only test the Laws of Gravity or badly injure your big toe!!!!!

I hate to hold back your obvious zeal to go forth and convert the masses, but I feel that I must point out that your proposed experiment isn’t incontrovertible proof for the existence of God!!!!!

However, sensible physical LAWS that work together in a purposeful coordinated manner to achieve definite and predictable results (as the Laws of the Universe do) indicates that a sensible ‘intelligence’ devised them – and this ‘intelligence’ as well as His Laws are working on such a universal scale that it can only be God.

P.S. You have taken a very good first step by becoming a Creationist, Robin. However, to be saved you must repent of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.