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
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Son Goku said:(Also wolfsbane has actually linked evolution with lesbianism in the past.)
Perhaps you could point out where. I do not see any direct link between the two. Both are non-Biblical, but so is Islam and many other things that are neither evolutionist nor lesbian. If pressed, I would be so bold as to suggest lesbianism is an indicator against evolution, given its non-survival of species outcome. 0 -
Wicknight
Intelligent Design theory by its very logic rules out God, or gods, as possible designers of life on Earth.
Then, why are the Evolutionists fighting ‘tooth and nail’ to ban the mere mention of Intelligent Design in the schools of America – on the grounds that it promotes a ‘religious worldview’??
I actually accept, and I have previously pointed out, that ID is ‘neutral’ on the identity of the Designer.
While ID proponents include Creation Scientists, - Theistic Evolutionists and ‘New Agers’ are also included in the ‘ID camp’ as well. :cool:
Wicknight
You JC are starting to realise this (scientists have none this for years, which is why they were kinda baffled by the religious fundamentalists championing the theory), and I imagine that yourself and other Creationists will slowly start dropping Intelligent Design as it becomes more obvious that its very nature rules out God.
Creationists will never 'drop' the concept of Intelligent Design – which is a very important proof of Direct Divine Creation.
However, Creationists accept that alternative interpretations for ID including, the belief in ET Aliens as the ‘designers’ do exist.
That is why Creation Science IS a separate discipline from Intelligent Design.
Both Creationists and pure ID proponents recognise and accept their differences on the ‘Origins Question’.
The only crowd trying to lump them together, up to now, have been the Materialistic Evolutionists!!!!:D
Wicknight
A modern day CPU has approx 42 million transitors in it. In comparison an ant brain has approx 250,000 neurons in it. Clearly the CPU is far far more complex and specificed than the ant brain (which you claim had is a perfect design and had a perfect designer)
You are confusing quantity (42 million transistors) with quality (250,000 neurons). The ant brain is so perfect and so miniaturised that is cannot be constructed artificially – while the CPU obviously can.
Therefore the ant brain IS far more sophisticated than a CPU – indicating a far more sophisticated Designer!!:D
The ant brain is indeed PERFECTLY DESIGNED for the functions that it performs – and all of the scientists in the World have been unable produce a functioning ant brain, let alone producing any improvements on it!!!
Wicknight
The ant brain is clearly far from perfect, but it does enough to function, enough for the ant to get by. Could the brain be better designed, more complex and use less energy? Sure.
How?
Wicknight
In a perfect design you would be converting as much as physically possible to convert into kinetic energy, and as such would be saving the ultimate amount. Engines are a long way off from that goal, but they are getting better designs each year.
That is pretty much how life works. It functions enough to get by, but there still exists waste, inefficency and errors in the design.
Combustion engines are indeed very inefficient with energy efficiencies of about 30% – but living systems AREN’T.
Respiration and photosynthesis cascades work at almost 100% energy efficiencies!!!!
Wicknight
The phrase "blind leading the blind" springs to mind ....
Great to see even atheists using sayings originally derived from the Word of God in Lk 6:39 “He also told them this parable; ’Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?”(NIV).:)
Scofflaw
That's what I love about God - so terse, so subtle, yet so apparently blindingly obvious.
I'm often surprised by the loquacity and circumlocutions employed by, say, physicists. All that equationary stuff, when all they need to say is "IT IS",
Yes indeed Scofflaw, it is often a very good idea to be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord - the great I AM.
Scofflaw
and in next to no time, someone will have worked out that they meant that the equations of physics are generally time-symmetric, together with a terrific implied proof.
This is also a very good idea - using your God-given intelligence, by the way!!:D
Scofflaw
local organisation is powered by an increase in general disorganisation. To do work, we turn complex chemicals (petroleum) into simpler chemicals (carbon dioxide and water). We can thereby make, for example, a building, which is organised.
But the ONLY WAY that the energy released can be harnessed to make an organised building is with the appliance of intelligence – without an intelligent input, the energy would merely explode or dissipate into the atmosphere without constructing ANY building!!!
Scofflaw
The insane leading the deluded over the cliffs of fantasy into the waters of incoherency
……to eventually reach the conclusion that muck evolved into Man!!!:eek:
DaveMcG
Then what came before god? And if nothing came before god, then why does something have to come before time and the universe?
God as an eternal, omnipotent and omniscient entity is an ADEQUATE and COMPLETE explanation for the origins of the Universe and all life.
The Big Bang, as a materialistic explanation, ISN’T an adequate or complete explanation – as it begs the questions of what caused it – and where did all of the matter and energy supposedly released by it come from?
The Big Bang itself is also unproven and unprovable - and thus strictly NOT a valid Scientific Theory
Wicknight
God is irrelivent to science.
He either doesn't exist, or is not altering the nature of reality, so there is no need to build Him into the models science uses to understand the universe.
I actually agree with you on this one.
Operational science DOESN’T need to build God into any models of how the Universe currently behaves, as God is transcendent and the Universe functions along the immutable Laws which God set in place at Creation.
However, when it comes to the forensic study of the Origins of the Universe, God is very relevant as the leading contender as Creator of the whole thing.
If evolutionists wish to voluntarily confine themselves to constructing Space Shuttles, controlling disease with ‘cutting edge’ vaccines and all of the other great advances of operational science then Creation Scientists will have no further arguments with them.
However, if Evolutionists wish to continue delving into the ‘Origins Question’ then Creationists will reserve the right to challenge their unfounded ideas on how the Universe and all life came into existence – and that is what the debate on this thread has been about!!!!
Wicknight
If God exists there is little point in studying anything scientifically at all ever. The universe just disolves into one absurdity after the next.
Actually, as usual, the reverse is true.
If God didn’t exist there would be no reason to suppose that a chaotically constructed Human brain could even think logically or coherently – and all perceived order would be just an illusion.
Equally, in the absence of God, and with only the extinction of the grave facing everybody, the Universe would indeed be one great, enormous, pointless absurdity!!!!!:eek:
Wicknight
JC is still rabiting on about the improbablity that a protein would just randomly form, despite the fact that there is no theory of neo-Darwin evolution that puts forward that a protein does just randomly form.
This has been pointed out the JC more times than I care to remember, yet every few days it pops up again.
Once again you are incorrect.
My last posting on the matter was in response to Lazare who proffered the often-quoted Evolutionist idea that the odds of life spontaneously appearing are akin to winning the National Lottery every night for a hundred years.
I merely pointed out that the odds of THE SAME PERSON winning the National Lottery twice a week for one hundred years are 10E+72,800 to one – which is a statistical and mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY.
I never mentioned a word about proteins in this post – I merely demonstrated that Evolutionists are as hopeless at mathematics as they are at Biology!!!!:eek: 0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement