The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote:

Point duly noted. It is a bit condesending and holyer than though, my apologies. It is something I feel however, but I agree it should not be expressed in the context it has been. It should be carried out in the privacy of my own mind. Well what do you know, this conversation has thought me something:)

Since we're in learning mode, can I point out that it's "taught" not "thought".

Sorry, had to do it

JimiTime

bluewolf wrote:

Since we're in learning mode, can I point out that it's "taught" not "thought".

Sorry, had to do it

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Adam and Eve.

:rolleyes:

So you do believe in a religion, and specifically a literal interpretation of a specific religious holy book.

Have you asked yourself why you believe the Bible is historically correct, which after all is just a book, and why you believe it is the literal word of God?

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

JimiTime wrote:

The very fact that you are in a Christian forum trying to tell us that we have it all wrong would be the most obvious one!

Another non-answer, exactly as robindch predicted.

For the 80 millionth time, believe in God if you want. I am only here to debate JC & cos assertion that evolution and the Big Bang do not match evidence.

So again where has science gone beyond itself and placed itself as a religion?

(Also you response is poor by any standards, I am not science, so even ignoring the fact that it dodges the issue, it still makes no sense.)

It does make a certain kind of sense, although in the opposite direction. We are here, arguing, because the religious posters are overstepping religion's bounds by proclaiming its scientific verity....

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

:rolleyes:

So you do believe in a religion, and specifically a literal interpretation of a specific religious holy book.

Have you asked yourself why you believe the Bible is historically correct, which after all is just a book, and why you believe it is the literal word of God?

No I don't believe in a religion. Can you tell me which 'religion' you think I believe in.

I never said I thought the bible was the literal word of God?? Is there a reason I shouldn't believe its historically correct? Does it not accurately depict events of the past? Honestly, my finger is off the pulse to the latest bible critics. Has it been proved false?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

No I don't believe in a religion. Can you tell me which 'religion' you think I believe in.

Any one that holds that the Biblical description of the creation of the first humans consisted of Adam and Eve living in the Garden of Eden. So that would be the Jewish ones (Judaism, Christianity or Islam).

JimiTime wrote:

I never said I thought the bible was the literal word of God??

Then why do you believe Adam and Eve existed?

JimiTime wrote:

Is there a reason I shouldn't believe its historically correct?

Yes, lots.

JimiTime wrote:

Does it not accurately depict events of the past?

No.

For a start the world (and universe) aren't 6,000 years old.

All human life are not decended from 2 middle eastern people created in a garden near the Tigras river approx 6,000 years ago, or their sons who married their sisters.

There wasn't a Biblical flood 4,000 years ago that destroyed all land animals and humans.

Distinct Human language did not develop because God destroyed a tower near Babel and confused the minds of those who had built it so they could not accomplish anything they set their mind to.

I could go on ....

JimiTime wrote:

Honestly, my finger is off the pulse to the latest bible critics. Has it been proved false?

Yes. For that last 500 years or so ...

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

No, we have been arguing that science is the only way to attempt to get answers. Religion doesn't provide any real answers. You have to believe in the religion in the first place..

Thanks for the clarification.:)

Wicknight wrote:

A christian scientists and a muslim scientist can view the same answer if it is provided by science because science is universal. It is logic and reasoning.

On the other hand present a christian "truth" and the Muslim will just say "So?"..

True enough.

Wicknight wrote:

Religion provides nothing. It provides no logic, no reason, no justification to convince anyone that it is correct. You are just supposed to accept that such and such holy book is correct. When asked why are supposed to accept that the answer is "well the spirit of my god will tell you it is true in your mind"

Here we disagree. I have sound reasons for believing the Bible as the word of God. Also sound reasons for rejecting other 'sacred' writings.

Wicknight wrote:

I mean its absurd to structure our understanding of the world around these ideas. Every scientist would have to take a class in how to get God to inform you that the Bible is correct.

Not a bad idea really. Scientists becoming familiar with God. After all we have to take science in school. Why not religion?

Wicknight wrote:

The Big Bang is a theory (I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing but") and can never be proven, unless you want to go all the way back to the start of time and observe it happen.

Since it is a theory and can never be proven, I use the term 'nothing but'. So my question is ( and you have given your answer, quite well BTW ( quoted below)) is why put so much stock in a theory that can never be proven?

Wicknight wrote:

The question isn't if it can be proven or not. The question is if it works

The big bang works as a theory much better than most of the other theories.
You can't build a mathematical model to predict background x-ray radiation based on the theory "God made the world in six days"

In fact if you do base your maths and your observations of background x-ray radiation on this "theory" nothing works Your equations are jibberish.

That is why science rejects the descriptions of the Bible.

Wicknight wrote:

Theories from the Bible don't work. At all

The Bible is not a science book. I don't look at it for scientific theories. Why this is such a hot button topic is because, you are right in pointing it out, it goes right to peoples faith in the Bible and shakes their foundation.

For me, it is maddening that God isn't taken into consideration. Science has to take all matters into consideration that could possibly affect the outcome of an experiment. In Grade 13 Chemistry I botched an experiment and for the rest of the project I ruled out sodium as a possibility and sodium was one of my answers.

Science discounts God, when He is a possible answer for natural sciences.

Wicknight wrote:

Not because they have something against religion, its because people discovered (a whlie ago) that if you base your models of the universe on the Genesis accounts nothing works. The models collapse completely into one string of absurd maths after another.

No arguement here. My problem is that on the science sites that I checked, the stament of we don't know what went before the singularity, doesn't finish with, 'and there could be a God that got the whole thing stated' (that would satisfy me).

Wicknight wrote:

The existence of a transcendant God is nothing but speculation, so I fail to see your point..

Actually not speculation. I've met Him. So have many many others.

Wicknight wrote:

Scientists will speculate about what happened before the Big Bang but they recongise that this is only speculation. ..

And God is never one of the potential solutions offered up.

Wicknight wrote:

Because our ideas lead to a model of the universe that works properly, where as yours lead to a model of the universe that doesn't work at all and dissolves into a mess of nonsense...

And the universe is dissolving into a mess of nonsense. God gives it purpose.

Wicknight wrote:

So the ultimate question is if you give a cr@p?

Is your aim to better understand how the universe works, and therefore you would be more interested in models that work properly than religious dogma or descriptions in holy books. ...

I am very interested to know how God did it. I find the stuff where I can actually understand the lingo very interesting. I also look forward to watching the video on creation when I get to Heaven to discover how it all fits.

Wicknight wrote:

Or is your aim to focus on your religious dogma, and therefore you wouldn't be interested at all in models of the universe in the first place. ...

My aim is to help bring people into relationship with Jesus Christ. So that we can sit in heaven over a pint and enjoy the video together and have a chuckle at each others mistaken interpretations of data.

Wicknight wrote:

Most religious fundamentalists (those who believe in a literal interpretation of a specific holy book) don't care to much about correct and accurate modeling of the universe since most don't attempt to model the universe in the first place. You reject the Big Bang theory not because it is a bad theory, or because it doesn't work well, but because it conflicts with your religous dogma, which is more important to you that correct and accurate modeling of the universe....

i don't reject the Big Bang at all as a possibility of 'How God did it'.

Wicknight wrote:

I've nothing against that, until they move into the realm of science.

Expecting that science just out right accept models that simply do not work is being very unreasonable, when the goal of science is to work closer and closer to models that do work and disgard those that don't

Its not sciences fault your models don't work. If you are happy they don't work that is fine, but you should not except that science will take them on just because.

And how does there being a God that kickstarted the Big Bang go against any scientific model, when the scientists all say: we don't know and it can never be proven?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Any one that holds that the Biblical description of the creation of the first humans consisted of Adam and Eve living in the Garden of Eden. So that would be the Jewish ones (Judaism, Christianity or Islam). .

hmmmm. Thats a bit broad isn't it. My Faith is in The God of the bible and his son Jesus Christ, not the man-made religions surrounding them. You must distinguish between Religion and God. I am not religious but I am God fearing. Many many religions make up christendom. Just because they say they believe in God does not make them Godly, you get my point. If you ask what religion you are, I would say I do not recognise the word.

Then why do you believe Adam and Eve existed?

I accept Christ. Unlike many people who say they believe in Christ but believe in no Adam and Eve but rather it was a story etc etc etc. There is a scripture in Luke which gives Jesus' lineage right back to Adam. The reason Jesus died was as a Ransom for Adams sin. One perfect man for another. Accept no Adam and you must then corrupt Christs reason for dying. At this point I must point out that in all my dealings with evolutionists, I've never been convinced. Not because of pig headedness, but rather that I just didn't find it convincing.


.

For a start the world (and universe) aren't 6,000 years old.
.

Is this what the bible says?
.

All human life are not decended from 2 middle eastern people created in a garden near the Tigras river approx 6,000 years ago, or their sons who married their sisters.
.

Conclusive proof exists of this? If yes, where should I find it.

.

There wasn't a Biblical flood 4,000 years ago that destroyed all land animals and humans.
.

Conclusive proof exists of this? If yes, where should I find it.
.

Distinct Human language did not develop because God destroyed a tower near Babel and confused the minds of those who had built it so they could not accomplish anything they set their mind to..

Your sources are obviously alot more certain than where I've been looking. I'm not being smart, but where can I find the conclusive proofs of all these things you say.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Here we disagree. I have sound reasons for believing the Bible as the word of God.

Which are?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not a bad idea really. Scientists becoming familiar with God. After all we have to take science in school. Why not religion?

Which religion would you suggest the scientist use? Hindism?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Since it is a theory and can never be proven, I use the term 'nothing but'.

In science no theory can ever be proven. That isn't how science works. The theory of gravity isn't prove, neither is the theory of general relativity.

BrianCalgary wrote:

So my question is ( and you have given your answer, quite well BTW ( quoted below)) is why put so much stock in a theory that can never be proven?

As I said, because it appear to work well. If one theory helps explain why things happen the way they do you can bet that theory has merit. Which is why the theory of neo-Darwin evolution is used by modern biologists, because working under that theory the models of biological life work and match observed reality.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Bible is not a science book.

Finally we agree on something

BrianCalgary wrote:

Why this is such a hot button topic is because, you are right in pointing it out, it goes right to peoples faith in the Bible and shakes their foundation.

It certainly does, but as I stated in another post, that isn't sciences problem.

If a religion cannot reconcile the descriptions in their holy book with the latest scientific models that is up to the religion to figure that out.

The problem with religion is that that is quite hard to do when you have already stated the the previous doctrine or dogma is fix and cannot change.

Imagine how much simpiler all this would be if Christians just accepted that the Bible can contain errors and mistakes.

BrianCalgary wrote:

For me, it is maddening that God isn't taken into consideration.

As I explained God is irrelivent. He either doesn't exist or does not alter the nature of reality and the natural laws enought to warrent placing Him into a scientific model of reality. The models work with God or without Him, so there is little point in including Him in the models itself.

I'm not sure we would even know how to do that. How do you "add" God to the theory of general relativity? It would just be some pointless fluff at the end.

I think what you really mean is that it is maddening that science constructs models that appear to contradict the Bible. That is a totally different issue.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Science has to take all matters into consideration that could possibly affect the outcome of an experiment.

No it doesn't.

You naturally believe your God should be taken into consideration, but from an unbiased position their is no reason to include your God and not include everyone elses gods and godessess (or any other paranormal, supernatural explination someone can imagine up)

If someone conducting an experiment had to list or consider all the possible world wide religious beliefs, from the mainstream religions to the crank sitting in a bus shelter somewhere, all gods past present and future, all possible beliefs, they would have to fill a library every time they publish a scientific paper.

Instead they go - "Umm, not quite sure why this is happening"

BrianCalgary wrote:

Science discounts God, when He is a possible answer for natural sciences.

In what way?

If you can list something that can only be explained by a mathematical or physical model that includes your God, and only your God, I'm sure the scientific community would be very interested.

But as it stands your God has never been observed to interact with universe in any shape or form, so their is little reason to believe your God actively disrupts the nature of reality, over say the Viking giant or a Greek Titan.

BrianCalgary wrote:

My problem is that on the science sites that I checked, the stament of we don't know what went before the singularity, doesn't finish with, 'and there could be a God that got the whole thing stated' (that would satisfy me).

Why would it?

Put it this way, would you be happy if the statement read -

".. and there could be a super powerful Viking giant that got the whole thing started by a tear falling from his eye"?

Why would science make such a claim?

There is nothing to support that claim. Why would science pick your God over any other guess or explination?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Actually not speculation. I've met Him. So have many many others.

Thats great. Maybe next time you can ask Him to maybe realign the planets, or turn the oceans into jelly.

BrianCalgary wrote:

And God is never one of the potential solutions offered up.

Neither is the Viking tear drop "theory"

BrianCalgary wrote:

And the universe is dissolving into a mess of nonsense. God gives it purpose.

You can believe that if you wish, but as I said that is irrelivent to science.

God either doesn't exist or does not interact with any significance with the natural laws of the universe.

From the point of view of science those two possibilities mean the same thing. God is not included in any mathematical or physical models because He doesn't appear to do anything.

That isn't sciences fault. He is your God, if you want Him included in a scientific model go ask Him to do something of significance.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I am very interested to know how God did it.

No offense, but considering your rejection of a lot of modern science, I find that a little hard to believe.

It appears that that statement falls apart if it appears He "did it" differently than how it was written in the Bible.

BrianCalgary wrote:

i don't reject the Big Bang at all as a possibility of 'How God did it'.

Good.

I would wonder why all the stink about the big bang being "just a theory"

BrianCalgary wrote:

And how does there being a God that kickstarted the Big Bang go against any scientific model

It doesn't. It is the literal descriptions in the Bible goes against ALOT of scientific models.

As I've said a few times, God is irrelivent to the theory. A Viking giant tear drop could have started the whole thing, and that guess is equally irrelivent to the theory.

It is not science's responsibility to make a guess around your religious outlook.

Would you not agree that that would be a bit ridiculous considering all the other religous outlooks out there?

Son Goku

Brian, yet again, no scientific theory can be proven. Nothing in science can be proven, theory is the highest it goes.

To your other point, watch what happens when I use God:
"God caused the Big Bang".
Look at that, I haven't learned anything about Planck scale dynamics.

"God caused the Big Bang"
Using this hypothesis the authors derive the QCD ratio for...........wait we can't. use that hypothesis to derive anything.

Also the Big Bang isn't a theory of Creation.

Please read up on the nature of science.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

hmmmm. Thats a bit broad isn't it. My Faith is in The God of the bible and his son Jesus Christ, not the man-made religions surrounding them.

The Bible is the man made religion around them.

Who do you think wrote the Bible?

To say you reject the religion means you reject the artifacts of the religion, which includes the Bible.

JimiTime wrote:

You must distinguish between Religion and God.

I do. I know lots of people who believe in a higher power (a God) but reject all earthly religions. That includes rejecting Judeo/Christianity and the holy books of the Judeo/Christian religions, which includes the Bible.

JimiTime wrote:

There is a scripture in Luke which gives Jesus' lineage right back to Adam.

So you believe in the main artifact of the Christian religion, the Bible. Thats great and all, but it is rather strange to then say you reject religion. You clearly reject some religions, but you equally clearly support and believe in this one.

JimiTime wrote:

The reason Jesus died was as a Ransom for Adams sin. One perfect man for another. Accept no Adam and you must then corrupt Christs reason for dying.

That is a cyclical argument :rolleyes:

I would imagine that if you reject the idea of Adam, you also reject the idea that the reason Jesus died was for Adams sins.

JimiTime wrote:

At this point I must point out that in all my dealings with evolutionists, I've never been convinced.

You can lead a horse to water ....

JimiTime wrote:

Is this what the bible says?

Yes.

JimiTime wrote:

Conclusive proof exists of this? If yes, where should I find it.

A leaving cert biology book with a chapter on genetics and population spread should be enough.

JimiTime wrote:

Conclusive proof exists of this? If yes, where should I find it.

A junior cert geography book ...

JimiTime wrote:

Your sources are obviously alot more certain than where I've been looking.

I would recommend you stay away from the nonsense that is Creation Science then.

JimiTime wrote:

I'm not being smart, but where can I find the conclusive proofs of all these things you say.

I have no idea what you mean by "conclusive proof", since such a thing does not exist.

For any scientific theory to be considered scientific there must exist a posibility that it is wrong, even if it isn't.

You say you find neo-darwin evolution "unconvincing". I would imagine you will find all other mainstream scientific theories "unconvincing".

The problem is you don't want to see, not that you aren't looking. It is right in front of us, but you have to open your eyes first.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

So you believe in the main artifact of the Christian religion, the Bible. Thats great and all, but it is rather strange to then say you reject religion. You clearly reject some religions, but you equally clearly support and believe in this one.

'The Christian Religion'. Where do they go to church then. This unified body of people who accept christ? So Northern Ireland is full of people from the same religion is it? Are you choosing to miss the point i make regarding religion?

The problem is you don't want to see, not that you aren't looking. It is right in front of us, but you have to open your eyes first.

You assume too much.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

'The Christian Religion'. Where do they go to church then. This unified body of people who accept christ?

Groan ... in 200 CE they did all go to the same church.

Just because you don't follow a mainstream modern branch of Christianity doesn't mean you have rejected religion

In fact you most likely share very similar beliefs to one or more of the Protestant religions, seeing as your religion seems to be based soley on the Bible and ignoring what came after that.

JimiTime wrote:

You assume too much.

So you are open to the idea that the Bible might contain errors, mistakes, or is simply not meant to be taken literally?

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

So you are open to the idea that the Bible might contain errors, mistakes, or is simply not meant to be taken literally?

The Bible does contain errors. The perfect example is 2 different genealogies of Jesus. Take a look at this for example: 2 completely different lists:

GENEALOGY OF JESUS, AFTER DAVID

According to Matthew

14 David
15 Solomon
16 Rehoboam
17 Abijah
18 Am
19 Jehoshaphat
20 Joram
21 Uzziah
22 Jotham
23 Ahaz
24 Hezekiah
25 Manasseh
26 Amos
27 Josiah
28 Jechoniah

Deportation to Babylon

29 Shealtiel
30 Zerubbabel
31 Abiud
32 Eliakim
33 Azor
34 Zadok
35 Achim
36 Eliud
37 Eleazar
38 Matthan
39 Jacob
40 Joseph
41 Jesus


According to Luke

35 David
36 Nathan
37 Mattatha
38 Menna
39 Melea
40 Eliakim
41 Jonam
42 Joseph
43 Judah
44 Simeon
45 Levi
46 Matthat
47 Jorim
48 Eliezer
49 Joshua
50 Er
51 Elmadam
52 Cosam
53 Addi
54 Melchi
55 Neri
56 Shealtiel
57 Zerubbabel
58 Rhesa
59 Joanan
60 Joda
61 Josech
62 Semein
63 Mattathias
64 Maath
65 Naggai
66 Esli
67 Nahum
68 Amos
69 Mattathias
70 Joseph
71 Jannai
72 Melchi
73 Levi
74 Matthat
75 Heli
76 Joseph
77 Jesus

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Groan ... in 200 CE they did all go to the same church.

Just because you don't follow a mainstream modern branch of Christianity doesn't mean you have rejected religion

In fact you most likely share very similar beliefs to one or more of the Protestant religions, seeing as your religion seems to be based soley on the Bible and ignoring what came after that.

Whatever:rolleyes: Call me what you will if it makes you happy. What shall I tell people who ask what religion I am?

To be honest, I'm out of this conversation, I really don't feel its very productive at all, to either of us. Enjoy the rest of your arguing.:D

J C

Original posting by Robin
does JC come across to you as somebody with a firm grasp of technical detail

Scofflaw
Firm grasp of technical detail? Firm grasp of technical detail? Firm grasp of technical detail? Firm grasp of technical detail? Firm grasp of technical detail? Detail technical of grasp firm?

Sounds like Scofflaw has gone into ‘melt down’ mode in his desire to praise my technical prowess!!!:D


Robin
Creationist: I don't like science……...
Knowledgable person: It doesn't say X……………..
Creationist:……………


Evolutionist: ”First there was a singularity (AKA nothing), and then it just plain BLEW UP…….!!!!

Creationist: ”First there was an eternal, transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient Being (AKA God), and then He CREATED……..!!!!

Objective Observer:“I think that the Creationist wins that one by a mile!!!!!!!:D




Evolutionist: ”First there was muck, and then it just plain evolved into Man, using nothing but the basic laws of chemistry…….!!!!

Creationist: ”First there was muck, and then an all-powerful, ever-loving God created Man directly from it, using His infinite intelligence…….!!!!

Objective Observer: “I think that the Creationist also wins that one by a mile !!!!!!!:D


DaveMcG
I still don't get how god can just exist yet the universe has to be created -- can you explain that to me?

Because God is a transcendent omnipotent eternal entity, He can logically ‘just exist’.
God has succinctly described this phenomenon Himself, when He said that He is the great I AM.

However, the Material Universe must obey the observed laws of ‘cause and effect’ as well as ‘thermodynamics’.
All effects are observed to have a cause (the equal and opposite reaction of physics) and the Universe is also observed to be ‘running down’ thermodynamically.

Some transcendent entity logically had to be the ‘Ultimate Cause’ of the biggest ‘effect’ of all (the emergence of the Universe and all life therein).
Equally some all-powerful entity had to ‘wind up’ (or energise) the Universe.

God, as a transcendent omnipotent eternal entity ‘fits the bill’ on both counts!!!:cool:


DaveMcG
Also what's the creationist line on the human appendix? What's its purpose and why did the creator put it there?

Modern Medical Science has discovered that the Human Appendix contains lymphatic tissue which helps to moderate bacterial populations within the intestine. It’s role is thought to be particularly important in preventing peri-natal gastro-enteritis.
The Appendix functions in a similar way to the Tonsils at the upper end of the alimentary canal.
Interestingly, Tonsils (which are now known to play an important immuno-defence role in fighting throat infections) were also considered to be vestigial or useless organs back 50 years ago as well!!!:)


DaveMcG
And the bad structure of the human eye?

Perfect design is design that is fit for purpose and/or an optimum balance between conflicting factors. On this basis, the Human Eye is perfectly designed – and indeed it is a miracle of optical engineering!!!:cool:


DaveMcG
I'm also curious -- in recorded history, we can see how different cultures and civilisations have applied divine qualities to things that they don't understand. There are gods of water, wind, fire, the sun, the moon, mist, sickness, thunder, the stars, earthquakes, and so on and so forth.

These peoples had lost contact with the full truth of the Word of God after the Babel Dispersal. They satisfied their God-given desire to know and love the True God by worshipping natural phenomena – as the Bible so eloquently states, they adored Created Things rather than the Creator.
To a degree, latter day Evolutionists also engage in a similar activity – they marvel at the intricacies of created creatures (which they suppose were produce by the blind forces of nature) thereby denying the Creator His proper place in the order of the Universe.:eek:


DaveMcG
These gods are no longer worshipped for the most part (some exceptions) because they're not mysterious anymore, it doesn't make sense anymore to worship a ball of gases.

One could argue that the unfounded idea of The Big Bang is indeed a form of worship of a (big) ‘ball of gases’!!!!:eek:


DaveMcG
We've demystified these phenomena, and the main problem we have left is we don't know what started it all, where it all came from, etc.

Indeed!!!

I look forward to every Evolutionist humbly admitting that they don’t know what started it all - but I'm not 'holding my breath'!!!!


DaveMcG
Do you not see the pattern: something isn't understood, so it is worshipped. It is explained, and for the most part it stops being worshipped.

Yes, indeed I do see the pattern.
So on this basis, we can expect that macro-Evolution will be dropped as an Article of Faith by Evolutionists, because it has been scientifically invalidated.


DaveMcG
The existence of the universe is currently unexplained, and that is essentially god's main work -- creating the universe…………

If we understood where the universe came from, then there'd be no need for your god!

I agree, and that was why Evolutionists in the 60’s confidently proclaimed the ‘death of God’ in the mistaken belief that they were about to explain how the Universe and all life had originated spontaneously!!!!.

This proclamation was somewhat pre-mature, and as scientific knowledge advanced with breakthroughs in Molecular Biology and the emergence of Intelligent Design research in particular, the concept which ACTUALLY ‘died’ was macro-Evolution!!!!!

It is still being resuscitated and propped up by ‘dyed in the wool’ Evolutionists – but macro-Evolution is now ‘stone dead’ nonetheless!! :eek:

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Whatever:rolleyes: Call me what you will if it makes you happy. What shall I tell people who ask what religion I am?

A Christian

babyvaio

J C wrote:

These peoples had lost contact with the full truth of the Word of God after the Babel Dispersal. They satisfied their God-given desire to know and love the True God by worshipping natural phenomena – as the Bible so eloquently states, they adored Created Things rather than the Creator.
To a degree, latter day Evolutionists also engage in a similar activity – they marvel at the intricacies of created creatures (which they suppose were produce by the blind forces of nature) yet many deny the actual Creator His proper place in the order of the Universe.

This is interesting now. Isn't the text above in red pointing to the idolaters and also pointing to the Christians? Some Christians worship man named Jesus as God, yet Jesus (peace be upon him) was just a creature, with all due respect, and God's Prophet.

Some people are going into the heavy stuff by trying to understand certain things of creation but at the same time they keep forgetting that human's intelligence has its limits.
God does not need space-time to exist, He does not need anything or anyone. In fact, He created space-time. Just because we cannot understand where is it, if it's not in space-time? it doesn't mean that it can't exist. Or questions like what's beyond the known limits of the Universe?.

Well, I would like to know that too.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Perfect design is design that is fit for purpose and/or an optimum balance between conflicting factors.

No it isn't.

Perfect design is perfect design.

The hint, in case that point escapes you, is in the use of the word "perfect" in the sentence :rolleyes:

Design that does enough to be useful and get by is simply adequate design. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work.

The human eye is not perfect. It is adequate. This is demonstrated by the fact that other animals have much better designed eye than us.

God didn't design the human eye, or any other life for that matter, because to put it bluntly if He had He would have done a much better job than we find.

Its almost as if some kind of natural process developed the human eye! What a shock! :eek:

An imperfect design rules out a perfect designer. And life, like it or not, is imperfect in its design.


You can't escape that fact JC, not matter how much nonsense you spout or how many very incorrect definitions of "perfect" you want to us (its rather sad that it has come to this, Creationist are changing the meaning of common english words to try and win the argument .. how sad).

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Original posting by Robin
does JC come across to you as somebody with a firm grasp of technical detail

Scofflaw
Firm grasp of technical detail? Firm grasp of technical detail? Firm grasp of technical detail? Firm grasp of technical detail? Firm grasp of technical detail? Detail technical of grasp firm?

Sounds like Scofflaw has gone into ‘melt down’ mode in his desire to praise of my technical prowess!!!:D

Well, I suppose that's as accurate as anything else you've said.

J C wrote:

Robin
Creationist: I don't like science……...
Knowledgable person: It doesn't say X……………..
Creationist:……………


Evolutionist: ”First there was a singularity (AKA nothing), and then it just plain BLEW UP…….!!!!

Creationist: ”First there was an eternal, transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient Being (AKA God), and then He CREATED……..!!!!

Objective Observer:“I think that the Creationist wins that one by a mile!!!!!!!:D


Evolutionist: ”First there was muck, and then it just plain evolved into Man, using nothing but the basic laws of chemistry…….!!!!

Creationist: ”First there was muck, and then an all-powerful, ever-loving God created Man directly from it, using His infinite intelligence…….!!!!

Objective Observer: “I think that the Creationist also wins that one by a mile !!!!!!!:D

Mm. Perhaps, though, we should actually ask an objective observer.

J C wrote:

DaveMcG
I still don't get how god can just exist yet the universe has to be created -- can you explain that to me?

Because God is a transcendent omnipotent eternal entity, He can logically ‘just exist’.
God has succinctly described this phenomenon Himself, when He said that He is the great I AM.

Alternatively, because the Universe smells of lemons, and is made almost entirely of lip, it too can logically "just exist".

J C wrote:

However, the Material Universe must obey the observed laws of ‘cause and effect’ as well as ‘thermodynamics’.
All effects are observed to have a cause (the equal and opposite reaction of physics) and the Universe is also observed to be ‘running down’ thermodynamically.

Hmm. Causality is a property of the Universe, not vice-versa.

J C wrote:

Some transcendent entity logically had to be the ‘Ultimate Cause’ of the biggest ‘effect’ of all (the emergence of the Universe and all life therein).
Equally some all-powerful entity had to ‘wind up’ (or energise) the Universe.

God, as a transcendent omnipotent eternal entity ‘fits the bill’ on both counts!!!:cool:

Nah. Lemons and lip, all the way down.

J C wrote:

DaveMcG
Also what's the creationist line on the human appendix? What's its purpose and why did the creator put it there?

Modern Medical Science has discovered that the Human Appendix contains lymphatic tissue which helps to moderate bacterial populations within the intestine. It’s role is thought to be particularly important in preventing peri-natal gastro-enteritis.
The Appendix functions in a similar way to the Tonsils at the upper end of the alimentary canal.
Interestingly, Tonsils (which are now known to play an important immuno-defence role in fighting throat infections) were also considered to be vestigial or useless organs back 50 years ago as well!!!:)

Well, as we move away from the Creationist roots of science, I would expect our ideas to become more rational...

J C wrote:

DaveMcG
And the bad structure of the human eye?

Perfect design is design that is fit for purpose and/or an optimum balance between conflicting factors. On this basis, the Human Eye is perfectly designed – and indeed it is a miracle of optical engineering!!!:cool:

Good dodge. Please note, Dave, that anything can be described as "perfect", assuming you assume perfection. The human eye is perfectly the human eye, even the short-sighted ones, which are perfectly short-sighted.

If that reminds you of those completely meaningless discussions that almost everyone seems to have at some point, as to whether lemons are actually blue, it should.

J C wrote:

DaveMcG
I'm also curious -- in recorded history, we can see how different cultures and civilisations have applied divine qualities to things that they don't understand. There are gods of water, wind, fire, the sun, the moon, mist, sickness, thunder, the stars, earthquakes, and so on and so forth.

These peoples had lost contact with the full truth of the Word of God after the Babel Dispersal. They satisfied their God-given desire to know and love the True God by worshipping natural phenomena – as the Bible so eloquently states, they adored Created Things rather than the Creator.
To a degree, latter day Evolutionists also engage in a similar activity – they marvel at the intricacies of created creatures (which they suppose were produce by the blind forces of nature) yet many deny the actual Creator His proper place in the order of the Universe.:eek:

In short, everyone is actually a Creationist really, we're just more or less lapsed.

J C wrote:

DaveMcG
These gods are no longer worshipped for the most part (some exceptions) because they're not mysterious anymore, it doesn't make sense anymore to worship a ball of gases.

One could argue that the unfounded idea of The Big Bang is indeed a form of worship of a (big) ‘ball of gases’!!!!:eek:

Duck, rather than dodge.

J C wrote:

DaveMcG
We've demystified these phenomena, and the main problem we have left is we don't know what started it all, where it all came from, etc.

Indeed!!!

I look forward to every Evolutionist humbly admitting that they don’t know what started it all - but I'm not 'holding my breath'!!!!

Quite. Heaven only knows what oxygen deprivation would do to your brain. To save you, here: I humbly admit I don't know what started it all. Would you like to do the same for me?

J C wrote:

DaveMcG
Do you not see the pattern: something isn't understood, so it is worshipped. It is explained, and for the most part it stops being worshipped.

Yes, indeed I do see the pattern.
So on this basis, we can expect that macro-Evolution will be dropped as an Article of Faith by Evolutionists, because it has been scientifically invalidated.

Blah rhubarb custard lumps. It hasn't even been scientifically challenged, at least not by the pseudo-scientific gibberings of Creationists.

J C wrote:

DaveMcG
The existence of the universe is currently unexplained, and that is essentially god's main work -- creating the universe…………

If we understood where the universe came from, then there'd be no need for your god!

I agree, and that was why Evolutionists in the 60’s confidently proclaimed the ‘death of God’ in the mistaken belief that they were about to explain how the Universe and all life had originated spontaneously!!!!.

This proclamation was somewhat pre-mature, and as scientific knowledge advanced with breakthroughs in Molecular Biology and the emergence of Intelligent Design research in particular, the concept which ACTUALLY ‘died’ was macro-Evolution!!!!!

It is still being resuscitated and propped up by ‘died in the wool’ Evolutionists – but macro-Evolution is now ‘stone dead’ nonetheless!! :eek:

Typical JC, and not worth the bits it's written on. Waste of database space.

regards,
Scofflaw

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

The human eye is not perfect. It is adequate. This is demonstrated by the fact that other animals have much better designed eye than us.

God didn't design the human eye, or any other life for that matter, because to put it bluntly if He had He would have done a much better job than we find.

Its almost as if some kind of natural process developed the human eye! What a shock! :eek:

An imperfect design rules out a perfect designer. And life, like it or not, is imperfect in its design.

You can't escape that fact JC, not matter how much nonsense you spout or how many very incorrect definitions of "perfect" you want to us (its rather sad that it has come to this, Creationist are changing the meaning of common english words to try and win the argument .. how sad).

The design is not imperfect if the designed thing is not perfect as its Designer. You caught youself into a trap there - I agree that human eyes are adequate. At the same time you never explained what do you imagine by perfect eyes? So in the end, God created eyes which are perfect for what we use them. With your eyes you see everything that you need to see in order to live and survive. If you couldn't find food or water for instance due to the imperfection of your eyes, then you could complain, but now you can't.

You also say that life in not perfect in its design. Pls elaborate on that. What is the perfect life for you? And whatever it is, it might be something different and completely imperfect for someone else. Perfect design of life is hidden in the fact that you were nothing, you were not, now you are. And we all have the choice to thank our Creator. I call that a perfect design of life.

Diogenes

babyvaio wrote:

The design is not imperfect if the designed thing is not perfect as its Designer. You caught youself into a trap there - I agree that human eyes are adequate. At the same time you never explained what do you imagine by perfect eyes?

With only see a small section of the electromagnetic spectrum, I'm sure you'd agree that there are plenty of times when it would be absolutely necessary for us to see things at a higher or low end of spectrum than we currently do.

You also say that life in not perfect in its design. Pls elaborate on that. What is the perfect life for you?

We suffer genetic abnormality, if we were perfectly there would be no diabetes, no genetic blindness, there would be no inherited disease. Each of us would be born, perfect. Yes?

babyvaio

Diogenes wrote:

With only see a small section of the electromagnetic spectrum, I'm sure you'd agree that there are plenty of times when it would be absolutely necessary for us to see things at a higher or low end of spectrum than we currently do.

Our eyes don't need to be a Ferrari for us to live a normal life. See, human creatures are (almost) never really satisfied and they (almost) never appreciate free gitfs (and eyes are a free gift).

Diogenes wrote:

We suffer genetic abnormality, if we were perfectly there would be no diabetes, no genetic blindness, there would be no inherited disease. Each of us would be born, perfect. Yes?

Oh I see (with my perfect eyes). A man wants to live forever, but he is desperate 'cos he's gonna die some day. Well, what you want here you can get in the afterlife, in Paradise - no diseases, no going to toilet, no inherited polycystic kidney disease like the one me and my brother have...

Diogenes

babyvaio wrote:

Our eyes don't need to be a Ferrari for us to live a normal life.

Decent night vision would be appreciated by many.

See, human creatures are (almost) never really satisfied and they (almost) never appreciate free gitfs (and eyes are a free gift).

Ah right so we've gone from they're a "perfect design" to "be thankful for what you got" in a post.

Oh I see (with my perfect eyes). A man wants to live forever, but he is desperate 'cos he's gonna die some day. Well, what you want here you can get in the afterlife, in Paradise - no diseases, no going to toilet, no inherited polycystic kidney disease like the one me and my brother have...

Buh? Utter non sequitur. You claim "man is a perfect design" however when pointed out that man has many faults in the design stage, you start preaching that we're just the beta and the patch will upload when we're in heaven. Shift the goalposts much?

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, I suppose that's as accurate as anything else you've said.
...
Mm. Perhaps, though, we should actually ask an objective observer.

You just made me laugh aloud

Have we concluded that jc is trolling, yet?

Asiaprod

bluewolf wrote:

You just made me laugh aloud

Have we concluded that jc is trolling, yet?

I think he is writing a book, and we are his research.:)

Asiaprod

Asiaprod wrote:

I think he is writing a book, and we are his research.:)

If that's true he must have enough research for 5 books by now! :eek:

robindch

> in Paradise - [...] no going to toilet,

Hmm... that's one of the more interesting claims for heaven. Does that imply that there's no eating either? No milk and honey, dates etc?

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

At the same time you never explained what do you imagine by perfect eyes?

Eyes that function to the highest level that is physically possible given the laws of nature.

The point to remember is that nothing is supposed to be impossible for God, and God is supposed to know everything. Therefore He would know how to design perfect eyes. It wouldn't be hard or trouble. It would be exactly the same effort (which would be zero effort) for Him to do that as to design less than perfect eyes, which are the eyes you claim He gave us.

Perhaps you would like to explain why God didn't give us perfect eyes. Or even why God didn't give us eyes that actually function adequately in our modern life.

babyvaio wrote:

So in the end, God created eyes which are perfect for what we use them.

That is very flawed logic. For a start you got it the wrong way around.

What we use our eyes for is limited by how they are designed. There are things that we cannot do with out eyes which other animals can. This is imperfect design.

If you applied your logic to say a computers CPU we would all still be using 286s that were popular in the 80s, because people would be saying "well they are prefect for what I used it for (running DOS) so therefore this must be a perfectly designed computer chip". But it wasn't, at all, and this is demonstrated by the fact that we are now running computers the same size and cost of a 286 that approx 1000 times faster and more powerful.

At the end of the day, as our society and culture has developed, it is our intelligence has over come the vast limits and imperfections of our eyes. It is nonsense to claim that our eyes are perfect for the life we lead today. If you don't believe me, tonight at about 9pm turn off all the lights in your house and see how well you function.

babyvaio wrote:

With your eyes you see everything that you need to see in order to live and survive.

No you don't. Not by a long shot. As anyone who has ever been knocked down by a driver at night because the driver could not see them walking on the road, will tell you.

Our eyes provide an basic adequate level of vision, that for the most part works. But it doesn't work as well in a lot of circumstances, and they are far from a perfect design.

In fact the level our eyes work at is only really explained by evolutionary theory. But then no one here believes in that :rolleyes:

babyvaio wrote:

If you couldn't find food or water for instance due to the imperfection of your eyes, then you could complain, but now you can't.

Now you are thinking like an evolutionist

If our eyes would not be providing an adequate level of vision for the basic functions mammals developed approx 40 million years ago, natural selection would have weeded out the design, because as you say we could not function in the basic way, we could not hunt or gather nuriousment such as water.

But our eyes don't work in a situation such as functioning at night because evolution has not had time to catch up to such new and strange practices. Which is why we spend a lot of energy and money lighting our world when it is dark.

On the other hand, certain animals like tigers are used to hunting at night, they and their ancestors, have been hunting at night for hundreds of thousands of years. As such they much better eye sight than us, especially at night time. A tiger doesn't need a flash light to function at night, he doesn't need a street lap to allow himself to find his way home.

All this only makes sense if one views it within an evolutionary framework. We have bad night vision because we have not evolved good night vision, because we haven't needed it to survive in the past. It has only been in the last 10,000 years that we have begun to function at night, since we discovered that we can light our environment (orignally using fire)

But when you bring an all knowing God designer into this none of it makes sense.

God designed our eyes, but He didn't know how to design ones that work better at night? That doesn't make sense, God is a perfect intelligence, He knows everything. If He can design a cats eye that can function very well at night, why can't He design a human one that does too?

Or what about, God designed our eyes but He didn't forsee that as our society and culture developed night vision would become increasingly important? That doesn't make sense, God sees all, past present and future. It would make no sense for Him not to design better night vision eye balls because we would be spending a lot of our time functioning at night.

It makes no sense at all that God would give us the eyes that Creationist claim He did. And this is just one example. There are an infinate more examples, in humans and others life forms (before someone starts rabitting on about "The Fall" :rolleyes:), that rule out a perfect designer as the designer of life on Earth.

The way we find the design of life on Earth only really makes sense within an evolutionary framework. Which is how the theory of evolution developed in the first place.

babyvaio wrote:

You also say that life in not perfect in its design. Pls elaborate on that. What is the perfect life for you?

No, "life", as in living organisms on Earth, not "life" as in "Man, my life sucks"

babyvaio wrote:

I call that a perfect design of life.

Well I can only imagine that is because you, like JC, don't understand what the English word "perfect" means :rolleyes:

babyvaio

robindch wrote:

> in Paradise - [...] no going to toilet,

Hmm... that's one of the more interesting claims for heaven. Does that imply that there's no eating either? No milk and honey, dates etc?

Good point but this is what happens: People will eat (body & soul, we do not believe in soul-only formation BTW), and (instead of dumping the unnecessary stuff) they will sweat however their sweat will not stink but will have the smell like musk. See below.


Hadith - Sahih Bukhari 4:468, Narrated Abu Huraira

Allah's Apostle said, "The first group (of people) who will enter Paradise will be (glittering) like the moon when it is full. They will not spit or blow their noses or relieve nature. Their utensils will be of gold and their combs of gold and silver; in their centers the aloe wood will be used, and their sweat will smell like musk. Everyone of them will have two wives; the marrow of the bones of the wives' legs will be seen through the flesh out of excessive beauty. They (i.e. the people of Paradise) will neither have differences nor hatred amongst themselves; their hearts will be as if one heart and they will be glorifying Allah in the morning and in the evening."