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
-
J C wrote:Diogenes, you are certainly making an enormous fuss about feeding TWO cats!!!!:D
Are you claiming that there were only two felines on the ark? And that all breeds of cats are the children of these cats?
Also need I remind you that there are more carnivores that just the cats, that needed food.Here are a FURTHER two 'pickling methods' that I haven't mentioned already -
One is rigor mortis - caused by the accumulation of Lactic Acid in body tissues - which has a retardant effect on bacterial breakdown.
Gosh which would mean that if I dug up anyone buried for a year (at sea or otherwise) they would be perfectly perserved because of rigor mortis?
Wow then I guess you'll be well up for my steak challenge then.....and the second is salination - which converts pork into bacon - and can preserve other meats as well.
Both of these methods were used to preserve meat in the pre-freezer era - with rigor mortis preserving beef for up to a few weeks and salination being able to preserve bacon for years!!!
The ratio of salt to water necessary for salination is significantly higher than what you find in sea water. Fish, for example, couldn't survive in the water used for salination.
So how'd that work then? The sea was somehow more salty 6 thousand years ago, and fish didn't need to go on a low sodium diet?0 -
Diogenes wrote:So how'd that work then? The sea was somehow more salty 6 thousand years ago, and fish didn't need to go on a low sodium diet?
I feel a "God did it" excuse coming on 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Son Goku wrote:Okay easier question and a biological one.
Which is considered more unlikely by Creationists:
1. The formation of single-celled life on the early Earth?
or
2. Given the exitence of single celled life, the evolution of man?
And please no non-answers like: "THEY ARE BOTH CONSIDERED EQUALLY INVALID, I.E. IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!"
But they ARE both absolutely impossible!!!:D
Is this yet ANOTHER example of a (former??) Evolutionist thinking like a Creationist?:D
To answer your question. the 'difficulty' of evolving a Human Being from a single cell is considerably greater than the 'difficulty' of evolving a single cell using undirected processes.
The odds of producing the biochemical sequences for single celled Amoeba are 10E+40,000 while the chance of getting the DNA sequence for a Human Being correct is of the order of 10E + 1,800,000.
However, BOTH figures are so massive that the difference between them is academic as they are BOTH mathematical impossibilities.0 -
Wicknight wrote:I feel a "God did it" excuse coming on
......and I feel a "muck did it" faith-filled exclaimation coming on!!!:D0 -
Robindch
"Religion: reducing intellects to wood pulp for millennia!"
Religion is a man-made belief/faith system.
The Evolution Religion, is a good example of a widespread man-made belief/faith system.
Various religions, like Evolution, may have been invalid, but I think that you are a little harsh in your assessment that they have reduced 'intellects to wood pulp for millennia.'
In this regard, could I point out that Christianity isn't a man-made religion - it is a saving FAITH in Jesus Christ.:D 0 -
J C wrote:Robindch
"Religion: reducing intellects to wood pulp for millennia!"
Religion is a man-made belief/faith system.
The Evolution Religion, is a good example of a widespread man-made belief/faith system.
Various religions, like Evolution, may have been invalid, but I think that you are a little harsh in your assessment that they have reduced 'intellects to wood pulp for millennia.'
In this regard, could I point out that Christianity isn't a man-made religion - it is a saving FAITH in Jesus Christ.:D
Possibly your weirdest post yet - against stiff competition.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
-
J C wrote:In this regard, could I point out that Christianity isn't a man-made religion - it is a saving FAITH in Jesus Christ.:D
Who was a man .....
Who thought he was the son of God, or was that the guy in Waco .. its so hard to keep up with all the cults where the leader says they are the son of God ...0 -
-
-
-
-
> Religion is a man-made belief system.
JC, well done! You understand it at last!
> you are a little harsh in your assessment that they have reduced
> 'intellects to wood pulp for millennia.'
Not really, and here's why: your aim in life, as far as I can see, is to make yourself and everybody else accept and propagate the christian religion (or your variation of it) without questioning it. A book does that just as well as an unthinking human being. So, well, maybe my comment should more accurately read "Religion: making intellects behave like wood pulp for millennia!", but I think it's fairly accurate as it stands:
Religion: reducing intellects to wood pulp for millennia!
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
A creationist group, titled "truth in science" and set up by prolific newspaper letter-writer Andy McIntosh (professor of combustion), has just opened for business in the UK:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/
The company's board is listed here, and -- surprise, surprise -- doesn't actually contain any biologists, though they do have room for a chap with "a long career in agriculture and publishing evangelical Christian literature" (which puts me in mind of JC). Of the fifteen people listed as having any influence at all on the company, only two have qualifications in biology.
They've also included some quotes from proper scientists:Richard Dawkins wrote:...next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: "What kind of evidence is there for that?"
The company is promoting itself as "a new organisation to promote good science education in the UK. Our initial focus will be on the origin of life and its diversity." One can't help but feel that it may be some time before they shift their "initial focus".Charles Darwin wrote:A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.
My own reading is that this outfit is trying to cash in on the trouble that AiG is having in the UK, what with their worldwide rupture earlier in the year and departure of AiG UK's Philip Bell.
Any comments?0 -
-
-
-
Actually science has explained how life started.BrianCalgary wrote:In all honestly though, as a layperson, science has yet to adequately explain how life started.
Creationists just don't accept this explination because it doesn't fit within the literal interpretation of their holy book. But what'cha going to do? The phrase "You can lead a horse to water ..." springs to mind
Where did you get that idea? That is totally wrong.BrianCalgary wrote:Since non-living can not come from living, how did th efirst living appear.
The first "life" (I would be very interested to hear how you, or any Creationists, defines life) most likely developed as the product of complex self replicating molecules, in the seas of Earth some 4 billion years ago. It is estimated that it took approx 2 billion years for these self replicating molecules to evolve into the rather complex basic organic structures such as protiens, genetic code and cells, though they probably didn't look an awful lot life modern day cells (they had another 2 billion years to develop into us).
And before you ask, yes this has been shown to happen. Self replicating molecules have been shown to naturally form given the right conditions, and computer models have mapped their early evolution over the following thousand or so years (its a lot easier to do that in a computer than actually wait 5,000 years to see the results).
So there is no evidence, or logical reason for that matter, to state that "non-life" cannot form into "life" (under what ever definition of life one wishes to use). All it needs is the correct conditions and a couple of million years of constant replication. Which life on Earth had, and here we are.
And despite what JC will claim there was no "muck" involved
You obviously haven't been reading this thread, as the question has been answered a number of times.BrianCalgary wrote:Quite frankly anything I have seen or read scientifically can not answer that question.
Actually it is the result of unwelcome bateria or viri replicating inside your body.BrianCalgary wrote:No, sickness is the result of sin.
So, if one holds that these unwelcome bateria get into your body due to your sinful behavior, God must place this bateria inside those who sin, and not inside those who don't sin (though I suppose everyone has some of these bateria since everyone technically sins according to Christians).
So God does do it. Who else would?BrianCalgary wrote:When my son asked a similar question in his younger years I could answer very truthfully 'God made it that way'. Now that he is 13 he understands the effects of gravity in the universe that keep us in orbit. He marvels at how God was so precise in His creation to be able to keep us alive.
Fair enough. There is no way to prove God didn't create gravity.
But as has been established on this thread it is unlikely from the way life is designed that he designed life on Earth. Life on Earth was clearly designed by something (an intelligence or natural selection, depending on your views) that was not able to see or predict with any great accuracy the future events that said life would face down the road. There are a large number of different systems in the different life on Earth that attempt to deal (not very well in some cases) with various unpredicable events. Put simply the designer is doing the best they can, just as myself as a computer software designer cannot predict every problem my software will encounter after I release it.
But since there is no such thing as an unpredictable event to God, it makes little logical sense that God would design life in this fashion. He, knowing all, can and would be able to not only predict but actually see all future events. There would be no need to design rather sloppy general "I hope this works" solutions to unknown problems. God could design specific perfect solutions to all specific future problems.
And since God doesn't lie He would not pretend to not be able to see into the future, and attempt to trick us in this manner.
So the only logical conclusion left, as JCs arguments prove, is that if there was an intelligence behind the design of life on Earth, it certainly wasn't a god or all powerful intelligence. I suppose that leaves Creationists with super intelligent aliens. Though I'm not sure how supportive of ID they will be if that is the only logical conclusion.0 -
-
-
Originally Posted by J C
In this regard, could I point out that Christianity isn't a man-made religion - it is a saving FAITH in Jesus Christ.
Wicknight
Who was a man .....
Who thought he was the son of God
Jesus Christ didn’t just THINK that He was God – He WAS true God and true man.
Christianity is therefore a DIVINELY ENDORSED saving faith.
Son Goku
Taking the cellular level as a base, humans aren't a fraction as advanced as the internal workings of a cell.
The fact is that the Human Brain, alone, is the most complex functioning arrangement of matter in the Universe – and it contains billions of cells organised in a tightly specified manner!!!
Son Goku
Designing humans would have been childs play compared to the original challenge of making a cell.
I must remember that next time that I ask a Slime Mould to fly me to New York or when I request an Amoeba to perform Differential Calculus!!!!!
Wicknight
Which is probably why it took simple self-replicating molecules 2 billion years to develop into cells, where as humans developed from primitive mammals in "only" 40 million years.
…….and that is another reason why the Evolutionist INTERPRETATION of the Fossil Record is wrong!!!:eek:
The odds of producing the biochemical sequences for single celled Amoeba are 10E+40,000 while the chance of getting the DNA sequence for a Human Being correct is of the order of 10E + 1,800,000.
This indicates that the task of producing a Human Being is of the order of 10E+1, 760,000 times more difficult than producing a single celled creature.:D
However, BOTH figures are so massive that the difference between them is academic as they are BOTH mathematical impossibilities.
Wicknight
Oh, wait, worry the world is only 10,000 years old ... my mistake ...
Got it in one, Wicknight.:)
Yet ANOTHER example of a (former??) Evolutionist thinking like a Creationist!!!:D
Some of the best Creation Scientists are former Evolutionists – welcome to the world of Creation Science, Wicknight!!!:D
Son Goku
Why do dinosaur fossils terminate, at about the 65 million year ago mark, at the exact same point at which we find very large iridium (which are to be found in asteroids) deposits in the Earth?
This is the same point where Crocodile fossils ALSO terminate.
It is patently the same point in the order of Flood burial – and not a measure of great ages – and if further proof were needed of their recent death, along comes a Dinosaur fossil which is so fresh that it has articulating muscle and intact blood cells!!!!:D
bonkey
Its becoming increasingly clear that Creation Science boils down to a simple binary choice:
Can we dream up a flood-consistent fairy-tale that has no real evidence to support it
Yes: Do so, and insist this is how it happened, and that evidence to the contrary is misinterpreted
No: Fall back to "basis" explanation - God made it like that.
It's actually becoming increasingly clear that Evolution boils down to a simple binary choice:
Can we dream up an evolutionary fairy-tale that has no real evidence to support it
Yes: Do so, and insist this is how it happened, and that evidence to the contrary is misinterpreted
No: Fall back to "basis" explanation – Simple Chemistry made it like that.
Son Goku
However the more frightening thing, I find, is that you will respect the opinion of somebody who just bought his way through a diploma mill, like Hovind and the people who write "Answers in Genesis" above somebody who went through a 4 year Ph.D., like the average scientist, simply because the former are Christian.
……or perhaps some are influenced by the scientific conclusions of the following Creation Scientists (with somewhat more academic distinctions than a 4 years Ph.D.):-
Professor Thomas G Barnes, D.Sc., Professor of Physics, University of Texas, El Paso, Texas.
Professor Edward Blick, Ph.D., Professor of Aerospace, Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
Professor David R Boylan, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Professor Larry Butler, Ph.D, Professor of Biochemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Dr. Kenneth B Cummings, Ph.D., Research Biologist, US Fisheries Service, LaCrosse, Wisconsin.
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
Professor Donald Hamann, Ph.D., Professor of Food Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Dr. Harold R Henry, Ph.D., Chairman, Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Dr. John R Meyer, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Louisville, Kentucky.
Professor John N Moore, Ed.D, Professor of Natural Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
It is also possible that they may be influenced by the following 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
Originally Posted by BrianCalgary
I recently read a book that started with a boy in India asking his Dad what holds the world up. answer, an elephant. The boy satisfied came back a little while later, what holds up the elephant, well said the dad another elephant. This continued until the dad in frustration said 'it's elephants all the way down'
Bonkey
Fascinating.
A Brief History of Time has almost exactly the same story, only to do with turtles.
So, we have a choice.
We can believe that an awesome and sovereign God created the Universe and all life therein exactly as He said He did –
.......or we can believe that the Earth is supported by ‘Turtles all the way down’
Tough call!!!:D 0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement