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 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Asiaprod said;
Fiction Writers Guild Medal of Honour?You deserve a medal for that, that was amazing.
To help his confused mind, let me point out the resolution to his 'paradox'. The something cannot come from nothing truism is not contradicted by Creation. The truism concerns the material world; we observe the fact that something cannot come from nothing. But the existence of the spiritual world adds a critical factor. The material can be created by the spiritual.
That is how it happened: God, the eternally existing Spirit created both the angels and the material universe. You may deny that happened, but there is no paradox created by the assertions it did.
As to man's free-will, God's foreknowledge of how Adam exercised that creates no paradox. It might be used to question His wisdom in allowing it to happen (by those foolish enough to think they are wiser than God), but it has no effect on Adam's choice.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Scofflaw wrote:The solution is to recognise that these are separate frames of reference - one for a temporal being, one for an extratemporal being.
That doesn't make sense.
Either man has the possibility of choosing one of 2 decisions, or he doesn't
Just because he thinks he does doesn't mean he does. If the second option is not a possible option, even if the man thinks he can select it he still can't
Anyway, shhh, no arguing in front of the theists
0 -
Wicknight wrote:That doesn't make sense.
Either man has the possibility of choosing one of 2 decisions, or he doesn't
Just because he thinks he does doesn't mean he does. If the second option is not a possible option, even if the man thinks he can select it he still can't
Anyway, shhh, no arguing in front of the theists
It's back on the God paradoxes forum, so...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw said:
Admiring this further example of the common grace of God, in giving some unbelievers a logical mind and common sense,There is a resolution to the paradox, which leaves man with freewill in his frame of reference, and entire universe knowable throughout time in god's frame of reference. The solution is to recognise that these are separate frames of reference - one for a temporal being, one for an extratemporal being.
0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Scofflaw said:
Admiring this further example of the common grace of God, in giving some unbelievers a logical mind and common sense,
Its ok, the immovable object paradox is good enough for me 0 -
Scofflaw
First, every amino acid is coded for by several DNA base sequences, so there's some tolerance built in. Second, most proteins have a degree of tolerance in their struture - in particular, you can change almost everything about an enzyme except for the active site(s) without any effect. Third, most of us have at least two copies of most genes. Fourth, most phenotypic factors are controlled by multiple genes. Fifth, most biochemical pathways have a degree of tolerance built in as well.
We are, in fact, loosely specified.
Yes, there are tolerances 'built in' as well as back-up systems to correct gene errors - but all of these systems are further evidence of Intelligent Design. :eek:
We are also, TIGHTLY specified.
Genetic information is the specific instructions necessary to produce a living organism as found in the DNA of the cells of that organism.
These instructions are highly specific, even one nucleotide misplaced along a critical sequence can have catastrophic consequences for the organism.
They are also NOT chemically / physically pre-determined, patterned, repetitive or random as one would expect if they were derived by undirected processes, such as those postulated by gradual Evolution.
There are about 3 billion base pairs in the Human Genome and their sequences are observed to be tightly specified.
For example, according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old.
Scofflaw
My DNA is very different to yours. My DNA is very very different to a mountain lion.
Your critical DNA sequences are IDENTICAL to mine – and your other DNA sequences are also very similar to mine.
Your DNA is indeed very different to a Mountain Lion – and that is why you don’t pee on trees, walk on all-fours or have dense brown hair all over your body!!!:eek:
Scofflaw
Interesting that OEC's/Theistic Evolutionists do seem to have their own peer-reviewed journals, and their own scientific associations,
Creation Scientists ALSO publish their own peer-reviewed Journals (like the TJ or Technical Journal published by Answers in Genesis and they have their own Scientific Associations like the Creation Science Center.
The following is a list of a few Creationist Organisations:-
World By Design
Creation Information Ministries
Penn State University Origins Club
Triangle Association for Scientific Creation
Creation Studies Institute
Creation Discovery Project
Van Andel Creation Research Center
Origins Resource Association
God and Science
Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship
Creation Digest
UCSD Idea Club Links
Oklahoma Creation Science Fellowship
Korean Association for Creation Research
Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan
The Young Earth Creation Club
Association of Christian Astronomers
Creationissme (French Language) Creation Science Association Quebec
Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum
The True Origin Archive
Creation Studies Institute
Alpha Omega Institute
Absolute Real Knowledge For You
NPC Company
The California Institute of Omniology
The Discovery Team
Creation-Science Clubs:
Bible Science Association
Creation Science Association Alberta
Nature of Creation: Mission Imperative
Black Hills Creation Science Association
Ex Nilo TV Program
Midwest Creation Fellowship
Creation On-Line Course
Creation Science Center
Darwin is Dead
Creationism.org
Origins Resource Association of SW Louisiana
East Tennessee Creation-Science Association
Polish Creation Society
Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa da Criação
Remnant Publishing (Japan)
Australian Creation Research
Creation Science Organization Germany (
Biblical Creation Society - U.K.
Creation Discovery Project
Creation and the Early Church (UK) - Robert I. Bradshaw
Creation Resources Trust (UK)
Grupo Internacional de Científicos Creacionistas
Southwest Australia University Origins
GENESIS MAGAZINE (Sweden)
Center for Natural Studies (Yugoslavia)
Creation Science Movement (UK)
Biblical Creation Society (UK)
Hungarian Christian Scientific Society
Scofflaw
The "Big Cat Kind" that there is no evidence ever existed and that you just made up for the hell of it.
A debate exists amongst Creation Scientists over whether there was one, two or three original Cat Kinds – further research should answer the question definitively.
The issues in classifying Created Kinds are discussed here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp
......
0 -
-
-
No they aren't, because they would not be required if the system was perfectly designed. They are strong evidence against the idea that a perfect intelligence built us. Unless you are implying that God made us imprefect for some reason?J C wrote:Yes, there are tolerances 'built in' as well as back-up systems to correct gene errors - but all of these systems are further evidence of Intelligent Design. :eek:
So is salt, according to the Creationist definition of "specified"J C wrote:We are also, TIGHTLY specified.
If one salt molecule is out of place the salt crystal will lose 99% of its strength. Is salt intelligently designed?J C wrote:These instructions are highly specific, even one nucleotide misplaced along a critical sequence can have catastrophic consequences for the organism.
Again, so is a salt crystal, by the Creationist definition of "specified".J C wrote:There are about 3 billion base pairs in the Human Genome and their sequences are observed to be tightly specified.
Is salt intelligently designed.
I know. So there are in fact a ton of different ways that DNA can be structured that still function perfectly fine.J C wrote:Your DNA is indeed very different to a Mountain Lion – and that is why you don’t pee on trees, walk on all-fours or have dense brown hair all over your body!!!:eek:
Going back the card shuffle analogy, you do not know how many of the different card decks will function, just like you don't know how many of the different ways life could have sprug together. You assume that there is only one way. But there could have been billions of different ways life could have developed. You just think the way it did actually develop is some how special, the only possible way, because you aren't used to thinking about things in a scientific fashion.
It isn't peer reviewed if everyone who reads your work agrees with your premiss before they start reading :rolleyes:J C wrote:Creation Scientists ALSO publish their own peer-reviewed0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Scofflaw said:
Admiring this further example of the common grace of God, in giving some unbelievers a logical mind and common sense,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say I was inspired by the Devil?
confused,
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
First, every amino acid is coded for by several DNA base sequences, so there's some tolerance built in. Second, most proteins have a degree of tolerance in their struture - in particular, you can change almost everything about an enzyme except for the active site(s) without any effect. Third, most of us have at least two copies of most genes. Fourth, most phenotypic factors are controlled by multiple genes. Fifth, most biochemical pathways have a degree of tolerance built in as well.
We are, in fact, loosely specified.
Yes, there are tolerances 'built in' as well as back-up systems to correct gene errors - but all of these systems are further evidence of Intelligent Design. :eek:
Now, we can't have it both ways, can we? Either God can do a good enough job that our genes need no such mechanisms, or the effects of the Fall mean that our genetics are imperfect - in which case we need these mechanisms, but I can't see where you are going to claim they came from.J C wrote:We are also, TIGHTLY specified.
By 'specified', what do you mean exactly? Do you mean in the sense that what we are is specified by our blueprints (genetics)?
Hmm. By 'tightly', do you mean 99% specified? 99.999% specified ('three nines' in business parlance)? 99.99999% (or 'five nines', as they say). I ask because these are the sorts of things that are 'tightly specified' in design contracts - as adherence to the original blue print.
Is it important that the phenotype expresses the genotype 'tightly', or does that not enter into the picture?
By comparison to engineering projects, I think you'll find that we are actually quite loosely specified, assuming the words have the meanings above (indeed, I am assuming quite charitably that they have any intrinsic meaning at all).J C wrote:Genetic information is the specific instructions necessary to produce a living organism as found in the DNA of the cells of that organism.
These instructions are highly specific, even one nucleotide misplaced along a critical sequence can have catastrophic consequences for the organism.
They are also NOT chemically / physically pre-determined, patterned, repetitive or random as one would expect if they were derived by undirected processes, such as those postulated by gradual Evolution.
Well, the change of one nucleotide can have such an effect, in certain cases such as the one you have given (HGPS). On the other hand, it can have no effect whatsoever. On yet another hand, it can result in the production, by mutation, of an enzyme that suddenly allows for the digestion of nylon.J C wrote:There are about 3 billion base pairs in the Human Genome and their sequences are observed to be tightly specified.
Well, you see, this kind of thing only makes sense if there is a blueprint for the human genome. Such a thing is not known of, so I can only assume that you are saying 'tightly specified' by reference to God's blueprint. Of course, we cannot, in that case, "observe" the genome to be "tightly specified", because we don't have access to God's blueprint.J C wrote:For example, according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old.
Ooh. Dramatic! Actually, all of us carry all kinds of misplaced nucleotides without anything dramatic happening.J C wrote:Wicknight, misquoted by JC as Scofflaw
My DNA is very different to yours. My DNA is very very different to a mountain lion.
Your critical DNA sequences are IDENTICAL to mine – and your other DNA sequences are also very similar to mine.
Indeed, most of our critical sequences are the same as a chimpanzee's.J C wrote:Your DNA is indeed very different to a Mountain Lion – and that is why you don’t pee on trees, walk on all-fours or have dense brown hair all over your body!!!:eek:
Now, you don't know that.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Interesting that OEC's/Theistic Evolutionists do seem to have their own peer-reviewed journals, and their own scientific associations,
Creation Scientists ALSO publish their own peer-reviewed Journals (like the TJ or Technical Journal published by Answers in Genesis and they have their own Scientific Associations like the Creation Science Center.
Let's take a look at a couple of these organisations that we haven't already looked at:- East Tennessee Creation-Science Association - " MISSION: 1. To present at regular events (meetings) the truths of Creation as revealed in the Holy Scriptures and confirmed by scientific evidence."
- Grupo Internacional de Científicos Creacionistas - "Creationist videos & preaching techniques"
- GENESIS MAGAZINE (Sweden) -""an all christian association, furthering the spreading of books, brochures and other information supporting the faith in creation.""
- Center for Natural Studies (Yugoslavia) -"Center for Natural Studies is unprofitable, non-religion or political organisation, established with the purpose to promote scientific justification of the biblical concept of creation" - on a brief side-note, Yugoslavia no longer exists.
- Creation Science Movement (UK) -"CSM provides able speakers on Creation who major on the scientific evidence which is increasingly weighty."
- Biblical Creation Society (UK) - "The Creation Manifesto has been drawn up by the Biblical Creation Society in order to present systematically the consequences and implications of the account of the origin of the cosmos in Genesis. The purpose of the document is not to make an exhaustive statement about creation. It is rather to state what we consider to be the irreducible minimum that we can accept on the subject and continue to be faithful to the Word of God."
- Hungarian Christian Scientific Society - "Their activity includes giving lectures, pursuing missionary work and maintaining an online bookstore of creationist works. "
In other words, all of these are preaching organisations dedicated to spreading the confused word of Creationism. They are not scientific associations or research bodies, despite their grandiose names.
F- Must try harder.J C wrote:Wicknight, misquoted by JC as Scofflaw
The "Big Cat Kind" that there is no evidence ever existed and that you just made up for the hell of it.
A debate exists amongst Creation Scientists over whether there was one, two or three original Cat Kinds – further research should answer the question definitively.
JC, there is no evidence that scientific research has been done here. All this "research" you keep pompously referring to is nothing but literature searches and essay-writing - undergraduate stuff.
Of course, we have no evidence that you're aware that there's a difference. Or indeed that any Creationist does.
I deride your ability to think,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Originally Posted by J C
Yes, there are tolerances 'built in' as well as back-up systems to correct gene errors - but all of these systems are further evidence of Intelligent Design.
Wicknight
No they aren't, because they would not be required if the system was perfectly designed. They are strong evidence against the idea that a perfect intelligence built us. Unless you are implying that God made us imprefect for some reason?
Intelligently Designed computer systems have Intelligently Designed back-up and auto repair systems. Living systems have analogous INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED systems as well.
Both computer and living systems correctly anticipate the emergence of imperfections/problems due to the operation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.:cool: :cool:
Scofflaw
Now, we can't have it both ways, can we? Either God can do a good enough job that our genes need no such mechanisms, or the effects of the Fall mean that our genetics are imperfect - in which case we need these mechanisms, but I can't see where you are going to claim they came from.
You have actually answered your own question!!!:)
A perfect Creator WOULD design back-up repair systems that anticipated the need for such mechanisms after the Fall. These systems ARE evidence for an omniscient Intelligent Designer and Creator God.:cool: :cool:
The Evolutionists are the ones with the difficulty explaining how comprehensive back-up systems could arise that have no short-term survival benefits and are only expressed (for NS to select them) very rarely.:eek:
…..and I am not the ONLY one who is saying this – here, for example is a (growing) list of HUNDREDS of eminent conventional scientists who have ‘gone public’ with their dissent from Darwinism
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
I feel a paradigm Shift coming on!!!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
Your DNA is indeed very different to a Mountain Lion – and that is why you don’t pee on trees, walk on all-fours or have dense brown hair all over your body!!!
Scofflaw
Now, you don't know that
Fair point.
So DO you pee on trees, walk on all-fours or have dense brown hair all over your body?:eek:
Scofflaw
all of these are preaching organisations dedicated to spreading the confused word of Creationism. They are not scientific associations or research bodies, despite their grandiose names
I did say that they were Creationist Organisations – some are Bible-based Ministries with an interest in Creation Science while others are Creation Science Associations. :cool:
....... 0 -
Advertisement
-
JC I'm a software programmer, and I can assure you I am not a perfect being, despite what the ladies may tell youJ C wrote:Intelligently Designed computer systems have Intelligently Designed back-up and auto repair systems.
Computer systems have backup and auto repair systems to compensate for the mistakes that a programmer or hardware developer will make during the design and implimentation phase.
Are you saying the God designed us imprefectly, or that He was unable to predict any future problems what we may have?
That wouldn't make any sense. THerefore the fact that we do have these systems in us proves that we were not designed by a perfect intelligence, because if we were we would not need them in the first place.
To claim that he is compensating for the effects of the Fall would be ridiculous. YOu are claiming that could would not know what the effects of the Fall would be, so He would have to build a very general back up system rather than just address the effects of the Fall.
You are basically claiming God is stupid. Is there not a law against that in your religion?
So you can claim we were intelligently designed, but it wasn't by a god. That option has been ruled out, unless one wants to claim God was either stupid, or did not know what the effects of the Fall would be on humanity.
They don't have prefectly designed systems, we have systems that by there very nature can and will fail even without external interference, as this example has shown, So the designer (if there was one) wasn't perfect, and realised they were not perfect and could not know everything so they built backup systems, just as the imprefect computer scientists do today with imprefect computer systems.J C wrote:Living systems have analogous INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED systems as well.
The rules out God as the designer.
I suppose we are left with intelligent aliens.0 -
Son Goku
JC, how does the Creationist model of cosmology account for electroweak symmetry breaking?
The Big Bang Model claims that EVERYTHING is a result of NOTHING exploding!!!!
How does such a Model account for ANYTHING (including electroweak symmetry breaking)?:eek:
BTW the Anderson-Higgs Mechanism, was originally proposed by the British physicist Peter Higgs, as a mechanism to give mass to elementary particles in particle physics. It does so ingeniously (and speculatively), by for example, making the W boson different from the photon.
Actually, the Anderson-Higgs Mechanism was anticipated by Ernst Stückelberg as far back as the 1950’s. The breakthrough of Higgs was to give mass to a vector boson, by coupling it to a scalar field.
Electro weak symmetry breaking does provide a speculative explanation for how Electro-magnetism and the Weak Nuclear Force arose - and that's about it!! :cool: 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Wicknight
Computer systems have backup and auto repair systems to compensate for the mistakes that a programmer or hardware developer will make during the design and implimentation phase.
Are you saying the God designed us imprefectly, or that He was unable to predict any future problems what we may have?
Computer systems ALSO have backup and auto repair systems to repair the mistakes of the USER as well as combating ‘environmental impactors’ such as viruses, power failures, etc.
Creationists believe that this aspect of computer back-up and auto repair systems is analogous to God’s Creation of life i.e. God Created life fully developed and perfect – and He provided the back-up mechanisms in anticipation of the ‘environmental impactors’ which would result from The Fall.:)
Wicknight
Are you saying the God designed us imprefectly
Certainly not – Creationists believe that God designed and Created all life PERFECTLY.
Theistic Evolutionists seem to believe that God originally created simple, imperfect life-forms and gradually perfected/developed them over billions of years using Evolution!!!!:eek:
Wicknight
To claim that he is compensating for the effects of the Fall would be ridiculous. YOu are claiming that could would not know what the effects of the Fall would be, so He would have to build a very general back up system rather than just address the effects of the Fall.
God wasn’t COMPENSATING for the effects of The Fall in providing auto repair and back-up living systems – He was ANTICIPATING their effects.
God actually COMPENSATED for the effects of The Fall through the perfect atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross.
ALL life therefore benefits from God’s ANTICIPATION of The Fall through genetic back-up systems – but only Christians benefit from God’s COMPENSATION for The Fall through being saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.:cool: :cool:
Wicknight
You are basically claiming God is stupid. Is there not a law against that in your religion?
All Christians live under the unmerited Grace and love of God – the unsaved continue under the Law of God and His justice.
As Christians don't live under God's Law, they therefore have no law against calling God stupid – but their love and respect for God means that they don’t do so.!!!
Wicknight
The rules out God as the designer.
I suppose we are left with intelligent aliens.
Ah, but who Intelligently Designed your putative ‘Intelligent Aliens’ ???
....... 0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement