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
-
Scofflaw wrote:Answer: they will crow with delighted triumph.
Why: the phrase "judging by how well it was preserved, the skeleton may have come from a body that was quickly buried by sediment in a flood, the researchers said."
Implications will not be considered (and there are many)...it doesn't matter what the dating is, or that the child is not H. sapiens...only the phrase "quickly buried by sediment in a flood" will get past the gatekeepers of cognitive dissonance.
gloomily,
Scofflaw
Mmmm ....."quickly buried by sediment in a FLOOD", Eh??!!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again :-
Scofflaw, you are thinking like a Creationist, you are writing like a Creationist - do you know what - YOU ARE A CREATIONIST!!! :eek:
Don't be gloomy, always remember that "There IS life AFTER Evolution!!" - and a God who LOVES YOU and wants to SAVE YOU!!:cool: :cool:0 -
-
Diogenes
I don't think anyone is claiming mud became man, just a complex chemical and biological reaction occurred.
Diogenes, you really are a master of understatement!!!:D
Life certainly IS the ‘mother and father’ of ALL complex chemical reactions!!!
Your description of life is analogous to describing a super computer as ‘a spontaneous mixture of plastics, metals and Silicon’!!!:eek:
Diogenes
So again JC how did the animal carcasses survive (to feed the Big Cat Kind after the Flood)?
Firstly, could I point out that there were probably ONLY TWO Big Cats to be fed – and a WHOLE WORLD full of Flood Kill!!!!:D
Secondly, the Big Cats were less specialised than their many different descendants today – and they therefore were more omnivorous (perhaps eating LIVE Fish, LIVE amphibians, vegetation, etc.):D
Thirdly, the Flood Kill could have been preserved in natural pickling processes in the anaerobic conditions WITHIN great ‘pile-ups’ of carcasses that were partially covered with mud or buried under 'bog-like' conditions. They could also have been preserved in permafrost in areas of mountains near the ‘snow line’ or at lower altitudes in higher latitudes!!!.:D
Fourthly, although the Bible confirms in Gen 7:18-24 that the Flood covered the entire Earth and killed all air-breathing land-based creatures, the Bible is silent about how long particular areas of the Earth remained under water. Some creatures undoubtedly survived for many weeks into the Flood, because they fled to higher ground ahead of the rising waters/lowering land.
The huge upwards land movements that happened during the second half of the Flood Process meant that the last of the creatures to be drowned would have been amongst the first carcasses to be raised up out of the waters - as the mountain tops emerged from the waves and went on to form the mountain ranges that we observe today (complete with sea shells sitting there at altitudes of 5,000 metres)!!!!!
The creatures drowned last on higher ground, would have had the best chance of being preserved by freezing at higher altitudes and latitudes as the Flood receded and the land rose upwards.:cool: :cool:
Wicknight
It isn't a circular argument. It stops after the second alien species with no assertion as to how they developed.
So, it isn’t an argument AT ALL then – because it explains NOTHING about how life arose in the first place – just like Evolution actually!!!!:eek:
Wicknight
It is your assertion that something must have designed them. That something could be anything. It could be another alien. It could be God. It doesn't really matter.
Who/what designed living systems DOES matter if you are claiming to know how life arose, in the first place. Creation satisfactorily explains how it happened, based upon the best available EVIDENCE.
Evolution is ‘left at the starting blocks’ on this one – and that is why Evolutionists, like yourself, say that "it doesn’t really matter"!!!.:eek:
Wicknight
Life on earth is designed in such a way as to attempt to over come unpredictable problems that the life form might experience in the future. To God there is no unpredictable problems, He sees everyting. Therefore it is ridiculous to claim that God would design a system for future problems he could not anticipate.
As I have said before, God in His benevolence, chose to anticipate and ameliorate SOME of the effects of The Fall via the auto repair and back-up genetic systems that we observe in living systems. He DIDN’T design ‘perfect catch all’ systems – otherwise the possibility of death (and free will), would have been eliminated.
We should remember that God warned Adam and Eve in Gen 1:17 that they would die if they used their free will to partake of ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ – and death is the fulfilment of that (unheeded) warning.
I have therefore proven beyond any doubt that God DID design biological life on Earth. :cool: :cool:0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Son Goku wrote:How does the Creationist model account for electroweak symmetry breaking?
To REPEAT!!!!
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)?:D
Although electroweak symmetry breaking is somewhat speculative, the Anderson-Higgs Mechanism is an elementary case of tachyon condensation where the role of the tachyon is played by a scalar or Higgs field and as such, it is not inconsistent with the Direct Creation of matter.
Equally, the massive quantum excitation of the Higgs field or Higgs boson isn't inconsistent with the Direct Creation of matter either.......
0 -
Originally Posted by J C
Secondly, the Big Cats were less specialised than their many different descendants today – and they therefore were more omnivorous (perhaps eating LIVE Fish, LIVE amphibians, vegetation, etc.)
5uspect
Once again, (huge) assumption, evidence please?
The Jaguar quite happily swims and catches fish in South American waterways!!!
5uspect
J C how could there be frost when the whole fecking planet was supposedly covered in flood waters for a year???
Gen 7:11 states that the Flood started on the seventeenth day of the SECOND month while Gen 8:4 indicates that Noah’s Ark came to rest on Ararat on the seventeenth day of the SEVENTH month.
This indicates that the main Flood process lasted only 5 months – and this included the ‘flooding phase’ as well as the start of the ‘drainage phase’.
The breakdown of the Water Canopy at the start of the Flood eliminated the isothermal equilibrium on the planet that had kept temperatures at the Poles similar to those at the Equator – and so ice DID start forming in the Northern and Southern latitudes from the very start of the Flood.
A ‘Nuclear Winter’ type scenario also developed in the middle latitudes that resulted in what is commonly known as the Ice Age – and so there was probably plenty of frost and snow around during Noah’s Flood.:D 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:
Mmmm ....."quickly buried by sediment in a FLOOD", Eh??!!Scofflaw wrote:Answer: they will crow with delighted triumph.
Why: the phrase "judging by how well it was preserved, the skeleton may have come from a body that was quickly buried by sediment in a flood, the researchers said."
Implications will not be considered (and there are many)...it doesn't matter what the dating is, or that the child is not H. sapiens...only the phrase "quickly buried by sediment in a flood" will get past the gatekeepers of cognitive dissonance.
gloomily,
Scofflaw
I've said it before, and I'll say it again :-
Scofflaw, you are thinking like a Creationist, you are writing like a Creationist - do you know what - YOU ARE A CREATIONIST!!! :eek:
Don't be gloomy, always remember that "There IS life AFTER Evolution!!" - and a God who LOVES YOU and wants to SAVE YOU!!:cool: :cool:
Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Pfft. Thinking like a Creationist is easy - I read your minds like the back of a Cornflakes packet.
Seriously, though, that was scary...
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
J C wrote:Fourthly, although the Bible confirms in Gen 7:18-24 that the Flood covered the entire Earth and killed all air-breathing land-based creatures, the Bible is silent about how long particular areas of the Earth remained under water.
23Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out;Gensis: 7
24The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days. Gensis: 7
I suggest you read a Bible :rolleyes:
I'm sure the challange for you to eat a steak that has been floating in the sea for 150 days is still open JC ... :rolleyes:
Well you see JC that contradicts your previous posts. According to you there were no higher altitudes because the mountains didn't rise until well into the flood. So where did the land creatures flee to avoid the flood? If the world was relatively flat then they would have all been killed in the first few hours.J C wrote:The creatures drowned last on higher ground, would have had the best chance of being preserved by freezing at higher altitudes and latitudes as the Flood receded and the land rose upwards
It doesn't, but then it isn't supposed to. Evolution is concerned with life on Earth.J C wrote:So, it isn’t an argument AT ALL then – because it explains NOTHING about how life arose in the first place
And you have proved that life on Earth was not designed by a god.
We are only concerned about how life arose ON EARTH. If you want to believe that God made super intelligent aliens, who in turn made life on Earth go ahead.J C wrote:Who/what designed living systems DOES matter if you are claiming to know how life arose, in the first place.
But you have yourself proved the God did not design life as we know it on Earth. You have proved your own Bible wrong. Well done
And based on your own evidence and logic, God was not responsible for designing life on Earth. So you can continue to believe that life on Earth is designed by an intelligence, but you have prove that that intelligence was not a gods.J C wrote:Creation satisfactorily explains how it happened, based upon the best available EVIDENCE.
No he didn't, as you yourself pointed out. The genetic backup systems designed in humans, and in all life, are catch all systems, designed to deal with a wide range of possible problems, some of which never occur.J C wrote:As I have said before, God in His benevolence, chose to anticipate and ameliorate SOME of the effects of The Fall via the auto repair and back-up genetic systems that we observe in living systems.
As you yourself point out, God is a perfect intelligence, who can see everything that will take place. It makes no sense at all for God to design systems that attempt to anticpate a wide range of problems, some of which don't happen, when God could simply design the backup systems in life to target specific problems cause by the Fall.
If you believe intelligence created life on Earth one cannot escape the fact that the intelligence clearly could not see into the future, clearly could not anticpate the specifics of the problems life would encounter as it developed. So they (or natural selection if you don't believe in ID) designed systems that would be able to manage with unpredictable problems in a general fashio.
It makes no sense at all to believe that God designed these systems, since why would God pretend that He cannot see exactly all the problems humans would face after the Fall. He would know exactly what to expect. Large scale solutions that work in a not very preciese general fashion would be pointless, because he would know exactly where to traget his efforts.
It is completely illogical to the suppose God designed life on earth. You have proved, through the evidence of how life works and the statements of what God can do (everything) that God if he were to design life would not have designed life in such a sloppy way, with general catch-all systems, but instead would have designed life with specific solutions to specific problems.
You have proved that God did not design life on Earth. As I said before, Well Done. I tip my hat to you sir.J C wrote:He DIDN’T design ‘perfect catch all’ systems – otherwise the possibility of death (and free will), would have been eliminated.
Death isn't a disease so it would have no relivence to the genetic backup systems.
And you are right, the catch all systems that are in humans to deal with everything from genetic errors to invading organisms are far from perfect. It is not logical that God, in his perfect intelligence and know all of all time, would design systems that kinda but not very well deal with all eventualitys.
He would know exactly which eventualities to plan for and which to leave out. THat isn't how biological life works. All our back-up, recovery and defense systems work on the concept that you cannot know what will happen. Our immune system works on the idea that the body will not know every dangerous invader, so we target anything we don't recongise as being part of our body. This is far from a perfect system, and causes untold trouble at times.
But God would know all dangerous invaders, all diease that we woudl experience after the Fall, and could have easily designed a system to deal with these specifically, avoiding the problems when the immune system makes a mistake.
Why would God design an inperfect defense system that cannot anticpiate specifically future threats. That makes no logical sense. God knows everything doesn't He? So He would know exactly what threats we would face, from now until the end of time.
As I said, I tip my hat to you sir. Your logical has, through a rather amusing accident on your part I would imagine, given irrefutable logical proof that God was not the designer of life on Earth.0 -
-
robindch wrote:> [wolfsbane] the Devil seduces them to sin
Well, apropos of sinners in the bible, my devilish sister just kindly emailed me this graphic:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/mithrastheprophet/forum/god-v-satan.png
Hmm....
And that is ignoring the Biblic Flood ... probably because it never happened
0 -
J C wrote:To REPEAT!!!!
The Big Bang Model claims that EVERYTHING is a result of NOTHING exploding!!!!
To repeat NO IT DOESN'T!!!
JC if you can't answer Son Goku question just say so. You don't need to lie about what the Big Bang theory is just to deflect attention away.0 -
Do we have an estimate of casualties for the flood? J C, was wowing us with his population models a few pages back, did he calculate the number of people alive at the time of the flood?Wicknight wrote:And that is ignoring the Biblic Flood ... probably because it never happened
If I remember rightly everyone had 10 children, they all eat lion meat or mana, and lived to be 800 years or something, though the earth was much flatter then and they were allowed breed with their relatives because they were purer. ... it was quite complex so I won't attempt it myself, then again I may not have understood his methods fully.0 -
Son Goku
In what gauge does the Creationist Quantization occur?
Do you go for the standard ones or something else?
BTW I notice that you haven’t answered my fundamental question in relation to The Big Bang :–
How does something, which claims that EVERYTHING is the result of NOTHING exploding, account for ANYTHING (including electroweak symmetry breaking)?
As for Quantization, the QED model, speculatively postulates that electrons, should be viewed as STRUCTURELESS elementary constituents of matter, interacting with photons, which are STRUCTURELESS elementary particles of light!!!!
The Standard Model further extends QED to explain all three interactions of subnuclear physics in terms of similar basic constituents – which is a bit of a stretch, to say the least!!
QED postulates the existence of processes involving the creation of elementary particles from electromagnetic energy, and the reverse processes in which a particle and its antiparticle supposedly annihilate each other to produce energy. Whether this is what actually occurs is a moot point because even if all of this sub atomic activity does occur it isn’t inconsistent with Direct Creation, in any event.
The fundamental equations of QED apply to the emission and absorption of light by atoms and the basic interactions of light with electrons and other elementary particles. Everybody accepts the theory that charged particles may interact by emitting and absorbing photons, and that these particles of light obviously transmit electromagnetic forces. So none of this is inconsistent with Direct Creation.
Son Goku
If you don't have the rapid cooling and expansion, do you have a different Field Theoretic Lagrangian?
What are its Feynman diagrams? Are the equations non-linear?
The Field Theoretic Lagrangian is just that, theoretical.
However, I will concede that the part of the Lagrangian containing the electromagnetic field tensor does seem to describe the free evolution of the electromagnetic field accurately but the Dirac-like equation with the gauge covariant derivative which describes the free evolution of the electron and positron fields as well as their interaction with the electromagnetic field are quite speculative.
QED also uses a covariant and gauge invariant prescription for the calculation of observable quantities. Feynman's mathematical technique, based on his diagrams, was superficially, very different from the field-theoretic, operator-based approach of Schwinger and Tomonaga, but Freeman Dyson subsequently claimed that the two approaches were equivalent, but I am not so sure!!!!
The renormalization procedure for eliminating the infinite predictions of quantum field theory was first implemented in QED. Even though renormalization seems to work reasonably well in practice, this may be co-incidental because Feynman was actually never comfortable with its mathematical validity. He even referred to renormalization as a "shell game" and "hocus pocus" – which confirms the highly speculative nature of quantum electrodynamics - and especially it’s integration with QFT.
QED also has some quite controversial implications that contradict Relativity (which is based upon C being constant). For example, light doesn't ‘know’ where it is going, and it therefore doesn't always take the quickest path – but according to QED light does not have to — it simply goes over every possible path, and the observer detects the mathematical result of all wave functions added up.
In fact, according to QED, light can go SLOWER OR FASTER than C to get there!!!:D 0 -
J C wrote:Son Goku
In what gauge does the Creationist Quantization occur?
Do you go for the standard ones or something else?
BTW I notice that you haven’t answered my fundamental question in relation to The Big Bang :–
How does something, which claims that EVERYTHING is the result of NOTHING exploding, account for ANYTHING (including electroweak symmetry breaking)?
As for Quantization, the QED model, speculatively postulates that electrons, should be viewed as STRUCTURELESS elementary constituents of matter, interacting with photons, which are STRUCTURELESS elementary particles of light!!!!
The Standard Model further extends QED to explain all three interactions of subnuclear physics in terms of similar basic constituents – which is a bit of a stretch, to say the least!!
QED postulates the existence of processes involving the creation of elementary particles from electromagnetic energy, and the reverse processes in which a particle and its antiparticle supposedly annihilate each other to produce energy. Whether this is what actually occurs is a moot point because even if all of this sub atomic activity does occur it isn’t inconsistent with Direct Creation, in any event.
The fundamental equations of QED apply to the emission and absorption of light by atoms and the basic interactions of light with electrons and other elementary particles. Everybody accepts the theory that charged particles may interact by emitting and absorbing photons, and that these particles of light obviously transmit electromagnetic forces. So none of this is inconsistent with Direct Creation.
Son Goku
If you don't have the rapid cooling and expansion, do you have a different Field Theoretic Lagrangian?
What are its Feynman diagrams? Are the equations non-linear?
The Field Theoretic Lagrangian is just that, theoretical.
However, I will concede that the part of the Lagrangian containing the electromagnetic field tensor does seem to describe the free evolution of the electromagnetic field accurately but the Dirac-like equation with the gauge covariant derivative which describes the free evolution of the electron and positron fields as well as their interaction with the electromagnetic field are quite speculative.
QED also uses a covariant and gauge invariant prescription for the calculation of observable quantities. Feynman's mathematical technique, based on his diagrams, was superficially, very different from the field-theoretic, operator-based approach of Schwinger and Tomonaga, but Freeman Dyson subsequently claimed that the two approaches were equivalent, but I am not so sure!!!!
The renormalization procedure for eliminating the infinite predictions of quantum field theory was first implemented in QED. Even though renormalization seems to work reasonably well in practice, this may be co-incidental because Feynman was actually never comfortable with its mathematical validity. He even referred to renormalization as a "shell game" and "hocus pocus" – which confirms the highly speculative nature of quantum electrodynamics - and especially it’s integration with QFT.
QED also has some quite controversial implications that contradict Relativity (which is based upon C being constant). For example, light doesn't ‘know’ where it is going, and it therefore doesn't always take the quickest path – but according to QED light does not have to — it simply goes over every possible path, and the observer detects the mathematical result of all wave functions added up.
In fact, according to QED, light can go SLOWER OR FASTER than C to get there!!!:D
Please cite Wikipedia when cutting and pasting. Like this:Wikipedia wrote:QED involves a covariant and gauge invariant prescription for the calculation of observable quantities. Feynman's mathematical technique, based on his diagrams, initially seemed very different from the field-theoretic, operator-based approach of Schwinger and Tomonaga, but Freeman Dyson later showed that the two approaches were equivalent. The renormalization procedure for eliminating the awkward infinite predictions of quantum field theory was first implemented in QED. Even though renormalization works very well in practice, Feynman was never entirely comfortable with its mathematical validity, even referring to renormalization as a "shell game" and "hocus pocus". (Feynman, 1985: 128)
From Wikipedia
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
For anybody interested:
The first term describes the Dirac Field(the electron field) which comes in little lumps, called electrons. The field itself is labelled by
. with a bar above it is basically the anti-electron field(positron).
The second term with the F, describes the photon(light/electromagnetic) field.
The actual photon field is labelled by A and F is basically a function of A.
And the final term describes their interaction. With, bar and A appearing together.
e is electron charge and m is electron mass.0 -
Wicknight
It is completely illogical to the suppose God designed life on earth. You have proved, through the evidence of how life works and the statements of what God can do (everything) that God if he were to design life would not have designed life in such a sloppy way, with general catch-all systems, but instead would have designed life with specific solutions to specific problems.
It is actually completely illogical to suppose that life designed ITSELF – without a substantial input of external intelligence.
Yes, God is omnipotent and omniscient and He therefore CAN do everything THAT HE WISHES TO DO.:D
Life does indeed exhibit very tight specificity – with specific solutions being provided to specific problems, for example the blood clotting cascade.
Yes, DEFECTS in living processes do arise - generally via mutations. However, these DEFECTS show no potential to account for the spontaneous evolution of life and they are, in fact, due to the introduction of death and decay into the Universe after the Fall of Man.
As I have said repeatedly, and without effective refutation, God in His benevolence, chose to anticipate and ameliorate SOME of the effects of The Fall via the auto repair and back-up genetic systems that we observe in living systems. He DIDN’T design PERMANENT ‘catch all’ systems – otherwise the possibility of free will (and death from it’s exercise), would have been eliminated.
We should remember that God warned Adam and Eve in Gen 1:17 that they would die if they used their free will to partake of ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ – and death is the fulfilment of that unheeded warning.
Living systems are still quite specific and perfect, even after the ravages of many mutations and other environmental impactors. It would appear that ‘perfect catch all’ living systems were Created originally – but they were degraded after The Fall. 0 -
J C wrote:It is actually completely illogical to suppose that life designed ITSELF – without a substantial input of external intelligence.
Thats fine JC, you can believe anything you like designed Life on Earth, super intelligent aliens would seem the most plausable if one rejects the concept of evolution.
But that doesn't change the fact that you have proved that who ever designed life on Earth, be it intelligent or otherwise, could not see into the future, and as such, using your own logic, it is not logical to suppose that it was a god.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
And your Bible states that God does not lie. He would not pretend to not be able to see into the future, nor would he rush the creation of life because he couldn't be arse seeing into the future. God would know everything that has, is and will happen without even trying.J C wrote:Yes, God is omnipotent and omniscient and He therefore CAN do everything THAT HE WISHES TO DO.:D
It therefore makes no logical sense to suggest that God would design systems that cannot deal specifically with future problems. That only makes logical sense if the designers of life on Earth could not see or predict the specifics of these future problems, and had to design more general backup and defense systems to deal with unpredictable events
To God there are no unpredicatble events. Therefore God would not need to design systems like this. Thefore God didn't design life on Earth. Your logic has proved that.
Q.E.D
Again even more evidence that God was not our designer. Well done JC, you are on a rollJ C wrote:Life does indeed exhibit very tight specificity – with specific solutions being provided to specific problems, for example the blood clotting cascade.
The body has specific solutions to specific problems. And it also provides very general, not very good, solutions to other unpredictable problems. It makes no sense that God would design life this way, since He in his infinate wisdom would be able to design specific solutions to ALL specific problems, past present and future, as He, in his infinate wisdom, would know and understand all future problems that humanity will face.
What we find is that these are problems that the designers (intelligent aliens, or natural selection depending on what one thinks) could not predict. Predicting blood clotting is easy. Predicting future dieases and problems that might spring up isn't, except if you are a god. Then it is as easy as blood clotting.
God would know every diease or error in replication or any other problem that will ever effect humanity, or any other life on Earth. He would have no need to design general systems at all, he could make every system specific, not just certain ones like blood clotting.
Therefore it makes no logical sense that God designed life on Earth. Therefore something else must have
Q.E.D.J C wrote:Yes, DEFECTS in living processes do arise - generally via mutations. However, these DEFECTS show no potential to account for the spontaneous evolution of life and they are, in fact, due to the introduction of death and decay into the Universe after the Fall of Man.
Like I said JC, if you think intelligence must have designed life on Earth, go right a head. I disagree, I think it was evolution. And we have been arguing for 160 pages over this issue.
But what you have no choice but to accept, through YOUR OWN LOGIC, is that the designer of life on earth WAS NOT A GOD
You have proved that yourself, through your excellent example of the systems in life that attempt to deal with unforseen future problems in a general manner, as opposed to the systems in life which deal with specific problems, like blood clotting.
It makes no logical sense for God do on the one hand design sepcific solutions to sepcific problems yet on the other hand pretend that He cannot see future problems.
God sees all, do you not agree. To him there would be no difference in designing a specific solution to a present problem or a future problem. THe only ones who would have troube with this, and therefore would need to fall back on general solutions, would be an intelligence that cannot see into the future.
God can see into the future, therefore it makes no logical sense that He designed life on Earth. You have proved this
Q.E.D.
That makes no sense. Why pretend that He could not see the effects of the fall JC. You are making no sense.J C wrote:As I have said repeatedly, and without effective refutation, God in His benevolence, chose to anticipate and ameliorate SOME of the effects of The Fall via the auto repair and back-up genetic systems that we observe in living systems.
He designed specific solutions, such as blood clotting, for specific problems. But it is illogical to suggest that He, in his infinate wisdom, would then decide to design general solutions for future problems.
To God there is no past present or future. God sees everything at exactly the same time, does He not.
While He was designing specific solutions to obvious problems (such as blood clotting) He would also be designing solutions to non-obvious future problems, because they would be obvious to Him, since He sees all.
But we find that is not how life on Earth works. We have specific solutions to obvious problems, but we have general, not very good, solutions to the unknown unpredictable future problems, such as future genetic defects or future diease.
It only makes sense if the designer of life on Earth could not see into the future. God can see into the future, so He is not be the designer of life on Earth. You have proved this.
Q.E.D0 -
J C wrote:Wicknight
It is completely illogical to the suppose God designed life on earth. You have proved, through the evidence of how life works and the statements of what God can do (everything) that God if he were to design life would not have designed life in such a sloppy way, with general catch-all systems, but instead would have designed life with specific solutions to specific problems.
It is actually completely illogical to suppose that life designed ITSELF – without a substantial input of external intelligence.
Yes, God is omnipotent and omniscient and He therefore CAN do everything THAT HE WISHES TO DO.:D
Which is exactly (lest we forget) the reason that Creationism is unscientific.J C wrote:Life does indeed exhibit very tight specificity – with specific solutions being provided to specific problems, for example the blood clotting cascade.
This is meaningless gibberish. Solutions are provided to problems - they are then "specific" solutions by virtue of being the ones that are provided. To claim that this is meaningfully the same as "tightly specified" is the same as claiming that the Lotto provides a "tightly specified" result every week.J C wrote:Yes, DEFECTS in living processes do arise - generally via mutations. However, these DEFECTS show no potential to account for the spontaneous evolution of life and they are, in fact, due to the introduction of death and decay into the Universe after the Fall of Man.
Since we have several times shown that beneficial mutations exist and are real, this is a pointless line of "refutation". The details of, for example, the nylon-eating bacterial mutation are freely available, and do in every particular contradict your claims in this regard.J C wrote:As I have said repeatedly, and without effective refutation, God in His benevolence, chose to anticipate and ameliorate SOME of the effects of The Fall via the auto repair and back-up genetic systems that we observe in living systems. He DIDN’T design PERMANENT ‘catch all’ systems – otherwise the possibility of free will (and death from it’s exercise), would have been eliminated.
We should remember that God warned Adam and Eve in Gen 1:17 that they would die if they used their free will to partake of ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ – and death is the fulfilment of that unheeded warning.
Your argument contradicts itself in the space of a short paragraph. Adam and Eve did not need such systems before the Fall, and they exercised their free will to bring about the Fall - such systems, then, clearly did not need to be imperfect by design to allow the Fall, and Wicknight's argument stands.
You are clutching at straws, as you are forced to do every time we take you off AiS's prepared terrain.J C wrote:Living systems are still quite specific and perfect, even after the ravages of many mutations and other environmental impactors. It would appear that ‘perfect catch all’ living systems were Created originally – but they were degraded after The Fall.
It is clear that the words "specific" and "perfect" mean nothing whatsoever, or anything at all, given the use you make of them. Your presumption that 'perfect catch all' systems were originally created is a slightly better argument, but again contradicts your previous arguments.
Still, at least you aren't just copying and pasting from AiG or Wikipedia, I suppose - this is your own undiluted raving...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
Son Goku
My word!!, several pieces of plagrised material presented out of context with a few non-sensical claims.
‘Get a grip’ Son!!!
It would also help if you learned how to spell PLAGIARISED before you start throwing such ‘big words’ around - and using them invalidly, in view of the fact that I was directly responding to a Wikipedia reference that YOU had already given.:eek:
Son Goku
And speculative my ass JC, QED is the single most successful theory in all science
Oh, I thought that Evolutionists accorded the ‘lofty honour’ of ‘the single most successful theory in all of science’ to Evolution – at least that was what ye were saying earlier, on this thread!!!:eek:
Wicknight
Thats fine JC, you can believe anything you like designed Life on Earth, super intelligent aliens would seem the most plausable if one rejects the concept of evolution.
But that doesn't change the fact that you have proved that who ever designed life on Earth, be it intelligent or otherwise, could not see into the future, and as such, using your own logic, it is not logical to suppose that it was a god.
I suppose if your ‘logic’ allows you to believe that muck can spontaneous turn into Man – then almost ANYTHING is ‘logically possible’ – except apparently the MOST LOGICAL CONCLUSION of all - that because living systems are approaching infinite specificity and infinite density of information they therefore WERE designed by an infinitely Intelligent Designer –AKA God.:eek:
Wicknight
The body has specific solutions to specific problems. And it also provides very general, not very good, solutions to other unpredictable problems. It makes no sense that God would design life this way, since He in his infinite wisdom would be able to design specific solutions to ALL specific problems, past present and future, as He, in his infinite wisdom, would know and understand all future problems that humanity will face.
You have correctly admitted that the body does indeed have highly complex, interactive and tightly specified solutions to specific problems (the blood clotting cascade being an obvious example).
What you call “very general, not very good, solutions to other unpredictable problems” are in fact ESSENTIAL systems when designing physically autonomous entities. It is not a failure on God’s part to predict the future – it is, in fact, His (elegant) solution to allowing Created autonomous organisms to cope with the interactive effects of free will, random environmental impactors and the deleterious effects of The Fall.
BTW, the ‘not very good’ part is the direct result of The Fall.
These ‘general systems’ are therefore ANOTHER proof for the existence of God - and The Fall!!:D :cool:
Wicknight
God sees all, do you not agree. To him there would be no difference in designing a specific solution to a present problem or a future problem. The only ones who would have trouble with this, and therefore would need to fall back on general solutions, would be an intelligence that cannot see into the future.
…… or a perfect Intelligence that wished to grant autonomy (and free will) to His creatures
A ‘control freak’ God WOULD provide tightly specified solutions to ALL future problems – but such solutions would come at the price of our free will.
That is not how our loving, just God behaved. He wished to grant us autonomy and free will – and He hoped that we would use our free will to love and adore Him in return!!!
Unfortunately, Adam and Eve used their free will to transgress and the rest, as they say, is history (or a result of The Fall, if you prefer).:D :cool:
Originally posted by J C
Yes, God is omnipotent and omniscient and He therefore CAN do everything THAT HE WISHES TO DO
Scofflaw
Which is exactly (lest we forget) the reason that Creationism is unscientific
Even though God is autonomous and therefore can do ANYTHING that He wishes to do – the effects of His use of His autonomy (at Creation and in miracles) are OBSERVABLE – and therefore accessible to forensic science.:cool: :cool:
bonkey
In fairness to J C, people properly versed in QT aren't all that common. I'm sure it was the safest bet of a theory to turn his criticism to....he just lost the bet, so to speak.
I actually have an ‘open mind’ about QT as a speculative explanation for the existence of sub-atomic particles.
In any event, QT is not inconsistent with Direct Creation – so I HAVEN’T ‘bet’ either way on this Theory.:)
Quote:
How does the Creationist model account for electroweak symmetry breaking?
bonkey
Can I take a stab at this, seeing as J C isn't giving a good answer?
My answer is: It doesn't.
… and my answer is that as electroweak symmetry breaking isn’t inconsistent with Direct Creation it isn’t inconsistent with any Creationist Model and the question is therefore a ‘red herring’!!!!:eek:
….and now bonkey, would you ‘take a stab at’ answering my question :
How does The Big Bang, which claims that EVERYTHING is the result of NOTHING exploding, account for ANYTHING (including electroweak symmetry breaking)?
0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement