The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

JustHalf

J C wrote:

Just Half
This thread, and the effort spent on it, has brought no love into anyone's life.
What’s love got to do with it?

Everything. Christ did not die to bring Creation theology to 21st century science. He died to bring Himself and His love.

Brother, cease your arguments, for here they serve no good purpose.

J C

elivsvonchiaing
... having read this thread... please lock it. for this we are truely thankful!

Why do you want it locked?

The fact that Evolution is ‘on the ropes’ on this thread only reflects the true state of the theory of macro-Evolution anyway!!!

If you have no interest in it, then I would suggest that you should look at some of the thousands of other threads until you find one to your liking.

This thread has almost 4,000 postings and is as ‘hot’ as a volcano, with over 36,000 hits.

There are many threads that I have no interest in myself – but I don’t want them locked.
Everyone to their own taste I say!!!

…… for example, people like Gosplan, for example who seems to be a ‘new convert’ to the thread:-
Wow, finally something decent to post about on boards, though it looks like it's been here for a while.


psi
Sight related dis-orders have a genetic advantage. As our culture develops heavy usage of the eys for examining close objects (reading, using computers), the eyes has evolved to become inclined to focus at near objects, thus we have short sightedness. The same reverse trend works for long-sightedness. We also see, that these conditions aren't actually present at birth, the genetic manifestation is a "plyability" of the eye towards what it is most used for.

WHAT are you talking about???
There is NO correlation between what somebody’s eyes are ‘most used for’ and their ‘sightedness’.

There is a genetic component to myopia and long-sightedness – and they are both a ‘pain in the neck’ for anybody so affected – and, speaking as somebody who is long-sighted, I can assure you that it offers NO advantages - except perhaps, for Specsavers 'bottom line'.


psi
the allele itself is beneficial, but the recent change in lifestyle among our population, particularly with regard diet, means that we now have a percentage at risk to heart disease, which is a recently prevelant condition.

Again, WHAT ARE you talking about???
The allele is beneficial, but it will KILL you????

Is there ever a ‘non-beneficial allele’ in your view, or has plain English ceased to have any discernable meaning ?


psi
to a single cell organism, cancer is a good thing. It is only in multi-cellular organisms that you see disease manifestation. Cancer-processes themselves are most likely part reponsible for the development of complex multi-cellular organisms - the same processes are seen in the developing foetus for example (stem cells and cancer stem cells share many processes).

OK so an Amoeba will somehow function ‘better’ if it ‘morphs’ into a tumour cell???? I think NOT.

A foetus and a tumour both have ‘stem cells’ but that is where the similarity ends – the foetal ‘stem cells’ DIFFERENTIATE in a tightly controlled manner to form a baby while the cancer ‘stem cells’ go ‘haywire’ and form an UN-DIFFERENTIATED mass AKA a tumour.


psi
So 0/3 for you, none of your examples hold water
There is so much water ‘leaking’ out of YOUR three examples above, that it could re-float Noah’s Ark!!!!:D


psi
name a debilitating condition that spreads Yo have yet to do so.

EVERY one of them, unfortunately!!!!:D


psi
your making stuff up, depending on the species moths will live on leaf or bark. The brown ones live on and under dead bark and lay eggs there. Some who lay green eggs do so on leaves (although I believe butterflies are more likely to fit here).

I certainly am not making this up.

Look, the ‘melanic moth’ story is now recognised to be invalid, even by leading Evolutionists. Your are obviously not going to believe me about this, so here is a paper that demolishes the ‘melanic moth’ story, written, I think, by an Evolutionist:-
http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/RB7102.pdf

or if you prefer, an easy-read summary written by a Creation Scientist look here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp


Gosplan

question three for the creationist side.

Is there any evidence other then the bible for your argument?

Have a look here
http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-evolution.html

The creation of the Universe and God himself are not repeatably observable. However, strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE does exist for both God and Creation – and strong circumstantial evidence IS acceptable in a Court of Law where it has a STATUS OF PROOF approaching scientific and eyewitness evidence.

In any event, here are some of the basic Circumstantial Proofs for the existence of God :-

1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.
2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.
3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.
4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.
6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God


Each science discipline provides incontrovertible evidence for Creation as follows:-

1. Geology shows that all fossils are less than c. 7,000 years old with the vast majority of fossils dating from Noah’s Flood 5,000 +/- 500 years ago. The assumption that the millions of so-called “annual micro layers” observed in deep sedimentary rock layers such as the Grand Canyon represented millions of years of sedimentary deposition was disproved during the Mount St Helens volcanic eruption in 1980 when hundreds of thousands of “micro layers” were observed to be laid down in newly formed sedimentary rocks in a matter of hours.
Equally, polystrate tree fossils are observed ‘standing up through’ sedimentary rock layers that supposedly took millions of years to lay down – the logical conclusion is that that these layers were laid down rapidly and not over millions of years. It is ridiculous to postulate that a dead tree stood upright for millions of years while slow deposition of sediment gradually buried it. The fact that the ‘bottom’ of the fossilised tree is observed to be as well preserved as the ‘top’ is also a ‘bit of a giveaway’ that very rapid burial took place. Deep sedimentary rock layers therefore do not indicate ‘long ages’ – only a catastrophic worldwide disaster!!!!

Radioactive dating of rocks doesn’t work in PRINCIPLE – because we cannot know what the starting levels of radioactivity were or if further radioactivity was added or taken away (for example, by the differential leaching of the radioactive chemicals such as Potassium) during the ‘life’ of the rock. It also doesn’t work in PRACTICE – because erroneous (very large) ages are routinely obtained from rocks of recent KNOWN ages.


2. Palaeontology shows the sequence in which creatures were killed and buried during Noah’s Flood – seafloor dwelling creatures and flocculated plankton first – all the way up to large land animals and birds, that obviously would be last to ‘succumb to the waves’. The extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (unfossilized) dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in supposedly multiple million year old amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed. If these bones / insects were, in fact, millions of years old, all biological material in them would have completely degenerated by now. The observed rates of biological degeneration under such conditions would give maximal ages of a few thousand years for these bones / insects.
The list of species in the so-called Geological Column represents the order of their catastrophic burial and it is NOT a record of their supposed evolution.

Equally, using collections of animal and plant fossils to ‘date’ a rock on the basis of Evolutionary assumptions in relation to the assumed position of these creatures in the ‘Evolutionary Tree’ is only valid if Evolution (and its Tree) are scientifically valid. It is actually an example of circular reasoning in action.
Strata, which hold the same collection of fossils, could indicate that these creatures were buried during the same stage of the Flood Event for a number of reasons including their physical location in the Biosphere or the place where they gathered together before being drowned. It could also be related to their size, shape or hydrodynamic characteristics.

3. Taxonomy shows the CURRENT biological relationships among species that have arisen through speciation processes acting on the original created Kinds.
Evolution explains nothing more than the scientifically valid phenomenon of Natural Selection, and this isn’t contested by Creation Scientists.

GuanYin

J C wrote:

WHAT are you talking about???
There is NO correlation between what somebody’s eyes are ‘most used for’ and their ‘sightedness’.

You're making stuff up again.

Pubmed citations:
Myopia as a latent phenotype of a pleiotropic gene positively selected for facilitating neurocognitive development, and the effects of environmental factors in its expression.

Myopia, intelligence, and the expanding human neocortex: behavioral influences and evolutionary implications.

An evolutionary analysis of the aetiology and pathogenesis of juvenile-onset myopia.

There is a genetic component to myopia and long-sightedness – and they are both a ‘pain in the neck’ for anybody so affected – and, speaking as somebody who is long-sighted, I can assure you that it offers NO advantages - except perhaps, for Specsavers 'bottom line'.

Unfortunately your inconvenience doesn't count as evidence to support your claims. The citations above are a sample of the large body of work that, quite frankly, shows you are once again sprouting nonsense.

Again, WHAT ARE you talking about???
The allele is beneficial, but it will KILL you????

No it won't.

Poor diet and lifestyle when you have the allele will kill you. The very sudden (evolutionary speaking) change in human lifestyle means that we are seeing a disadvantage, but the gene itself regulates so many other systems that the liklihood of such a response is probably higher than we imagine.

Is there ever a ‘non-beneficial allele’ in your view, or has plain English ceased to have any discernable meaning ?

Yes there are plenty, anything that leads to sterility or the death of the oganism.

OK so an Amoeba will somehow function ‘better’ if it ‘morphs’ into a tumour cell???? I think NOT.

You are being obtuse.

An amoeba, in its replication method, shares much of the biochemistry of cancer cells. In fact, genes involved in cancer regulation (in this case suppression) in humans and animals, confer directionality to amoebas.

A foetus and a tumour both have ‘stem cells’ but that is where the similarity ends – the foetal ‘stem cells’ DIFFERENTIATE in a tightly controlled manner to form a baby while the cancer ‘stem cells’ go ‘haywire’ and form an UN-DIFFERENTIATED mass AKA a tumour.

Oh how naive you are. A large group of genes and proteins regulate cell division in both stem cells (of which there are more than just foetal variety the actual term is Totipotent stem cells by the way) and cancer cells. The first of these proteins indentified was nucleostemin and since then many more have been found.

In fact, the similarities between cancer cells and somatic stem cells are striking leading many to speculate on a common origin. A nice review is here.

Incidently, cancer cells, or tumours do differentiate. It is quite a thankful think too, because the folate receptors and antigen targets that the differentiated cancer cells express allow targets for identificationand drug targeting.

EVERY one of them, unfortunately!!!!:D

So you can't?

You know, I have about 10 years in the field of genetics, cancer research and physiology and biology, so you're going to have to actually argue a point here. Your baseless fantasies will be shot down one by one.

I certainly am not making this up.

No, really, you are.

Look, the ‘melanic moth’ story is now recognised to be invalid, even by leading Evolutionists. Your are obviously not going to believe me about this, so here is a paper that demolishes the ‘melanic moth’ story, written, I think, by an Evolutionist:-
http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/RB7102.pdf

or if you prefer, an easy-read summary written by a Creation Scientist look here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp

Great links there, of course, these are little known publications not widely accepted by geneticists, evolutionists or the general science community.

Go to pubmed and enter peppered moth and you're likely to get back better references. The last one I remember being in the respected Journal of Hereditary which was about 2 years ago.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

You're making stuff up again.

You will find he does this a lot

The best bit is when he makes something up, it is pointed out to him that he is doing this so he drops it, but then in a few days he says it again hoping no one will notice.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

You will find he does this a lot

The best bit is when he makes something up, it is pointed out to him that he is doing this so he drops it, but then in a few days he says it again hoping no one will notice.

I have no problem with a belief system that encompasses evolution, god, spirits or anything else.

I support these things, apart from anything else, I think they can beneficial to the wellbeing of individuals.

I do have a problem with people manipulating or making up stuff and portraying it as science fact. Both sides do it and I don't discriminate (as well you know ).

Zombrex

psi wrote:

I have no problem with a belief system that encompasses evolution, god, spirits or anything else.

I support these things, apart from anything else, I think they can beneficial to the wellbeing of individuals.

I do have a problem with people manipulating or making up stuff and portraying it as science fact. Both sides do it and I don't discriminate (as well you know ).

Touche

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Hmf. I'm candid, I'm a scientist, I'm not an obligate materialist, I accept the possibility of the supernatural, and I don't even deny the possible existence of God. I accept that I might well go to Hell, if you and yours are right, and I have come to terms with that. I don't think we know all the answers, and I don't have any problem saying so. I think religion is a good thing for most people, and I can understand the idea of looking at the world in an entirely different way from the scientific.

Now, tell, me - given all that is true, why do you think I am so convinced of the correctness of evolution as opposed to creation? Hmm?

Because creation would mean you have to believe in the God of the Bible - the One you are adamant about refusing to worship. To believe in such a God, but still refuse to worship Him, means you would definitely, not might well be going to Hell. I think that sufficient pyschological pressure to blind you to the truth about creation.

wolfsbane

JustHalf said:

Keep it up, brothers in Christ! With this effort, we can take this thread to 200 pages!

Or we could take all this effort spent in round-about argument convincing no-one of anything, and spend it on clothing the poor and feeding the hungry.

Does this apply to all the other threads? Surely the time spent there could be used on clothing the poor and feeding the hungry?

I have to honest with you guys, I honestly think that the amount of effort wasted on this crap is something that makes Satan grin. You have convinced no-one of anything,

It is God's business to convince, ours to bear witness to the truth.

But I agree that enough has been said/explained to give all the facts one needs to decide if evolution or creation is true. A lot of the argument is going over old ground, with just the occasional new aspect emerging.

and insulted non-literal six-day creationist Christians with claims that they have a weak faith.

Hmm. Could you tell us what a non-literal six-day creation is? If not, then pleae consider that your position maybe is more a lack of faith in the Bible's veracity than a reconciliation of the Bible and Science.

This thread, and the effort spent on it, has brought no love into anyone's life. Please stop.

I think this thread has boldly declared God's love for man in sending His son to redeem many of those dead in trespasses and sins, the sons and daughters of Adam ,who fell with him. Many posts point to the God who created all things and to whom we as His creatures must give account. The arguements against supernatural Creation some 6000 years ago, apply just as well to those against a supernatural Resurrection some 2000 years ago. So the gospel of God's saving work in Christ is as vunerable as His work in Creation.

It is the denial of literal six-day Creation that undermines the love of God. It is the truth that sets one free, not the avoidance of it.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

The point of the article, which you seem to have missed, is that some unscrupulous people are able and willing to take advantage of others, by subverting belief in belief, or conflating passion with truth. This isn't a presupposition, but an description of what's going on. I suspect you'll deny this, though.

If that was the assertion he made, I'd be in full agreement. There are many con-men about. The exploitation of religion, patriotism, social class, ethnicity - all are common to man. Many of our politicians live on it. As do many leaders of society, both of religious and scientific academia.

It was his presupposition that evolution is true, therefore those who deny it are idiotic, that I ridicule. His failure to see his faith position while accusing others of that failure, this is the irony.

I believe his description is accurate, with the dinosaur no doubt waiting for another dickless creation to show up and ride him around the plains of Mesopotamia. I can confirm this, because I've been at a Ham lecture where he showed cartoons -- cartoons!! -- of stone-age people riding about on the backs of dinosaurs. I'm not joking, though I wish I were.

When you hear that promoters of creationism saying things like this and expecting to be taken seriously by paleontologists, do you ever feel even a mild twinge of embarrassment?

I would be embarrassed if he placed a saddle on a T-Rex. But we saddle elephants, so was it some dinosaur comparable to that?

I hope no kids are reading this thread, but half of the human race really does have mens' bits, while the other half really do have womens' bits! It's fascinating that some people want to protect kids from this basic biological issue. But then again, it's not the only fact of basic biology that religious people would prefer to airbrush away

We obviously have different views as to what constitutes public decency. You can have no objection to people walking naked through the mall; maybe even to having sex in public, as it too is a basic biological issue?

The Christian views nakedness as something not for public display, since Man is no longer in a state of innnocence. This is an entirely religious belief, obviously not defendable from a materialist understanding. There will of course be consequences for the party that is mistaken, by way of social decline.

J C

Robin

Gibbon had it right when he made this observation about the early church fathers:
Quote:-
It was their favourite opinion, that if Adam had preserved his obedience to the Creator, he would have lived for ever in a state of virgin purity, and that some harmless mode of vegetation might have peopled paradise with a race of innocent and immortal beings.

I know nothing about the views of ‘the early church fathers’ – or the accuracy of Gibbon’s quote above in reflecting their position on pre-Fall Human reproduction.

However, Genesis 1:27-28 is very clear that Human reproduction was to be by sexual means from the very start:-
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”(KJV).

The ‘giveaway’ that Human reproduction was sexual FROM THE VERY START lies in the creation by God of a male and a female - terms, which are an unambiguous indication of sexual reproduction.

Equally, the fact that God commanded them to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ is incontrovertible proof that God wished mankind to use their sexual reproductive powers right from the start (i.e. pre-Fall) as well as post-Fall.


Scofflaw
Well, if you prefer to be Biblically literalist, there are quite a number of things that you don't get to enjoy.

There is NOTHING (that is not illegal or immoral) that a Christian CAN’T enjoy!!!

I think that you may be confusing the word ‘Puritan’ with ‘Christian’ here – and although many Puritans were Christians, there is no OBLIGATION on Christians to be puritanical!!!:D


Scofflaw
I think science is science: what it reveals about the universe is amazing, and frequently pleasing, but it doesn't support atheism, as many, both theist and atheist, seem to believe.

As a Theist, I agree with you that science certainly DOESN’T support Atheism, but it also DOESN’T support macro-Evolution either.

On the other hand, science FULLY SUPPORTS the Direct Creation of life and it’s Intelligent Design by God.:D


Scofflaw
I shall bear that in mind when next someone says that x or y is done because that's what was done in the Bible.

There are indeed many things recorded as being done in the historical narrative of the Bible, which we shouldn’t or wouldn’t do anymore.

For example throwing stones at people on the basis of what David did to Goliath WOULDN’T be a morally valid (or indeed legal) activity!!!


Originally posted by JC
NO Christian will be ‘flung into Hell’.

Scofflaw
And are all your fellow Christians in agreement, or is this a personal interpretation?

I can’t speak for ALL Christians on this one – but I would point out that St Paul attached no conditions to being saved in Acts 16:31 other that a belief on Jesus Christ’s ability to save you.

As we are all sinners and unable to save ourselves by our own efforts, and Jesus Christ offers salvation to ANYBODY who asks for it, the logical conclusion is that no Christian, who repents and believes on Jesus Christ will be ‘flung into Hell’.


Scofflaw
don't quote Revelations as if it were meant to be taken literally. Surely you know better, after all the warnings that have been dished out on this very forum not to do so. It's quite clearly one of the figurative or allegorical bits of the Bible.

I fully accept that Revelation extensively uses metaphors and allegory.

…..but the metaphor in Rev 7:9 “after this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.” (KJV) certainly does indicate very, very large numbers of people in Heaven.

Perhaps this will be as a result of the large scale acceptance of Intelligent Design – with a consequent large increase in Theism and ultimately Christianity – you never know!!!!!!:eek:


Originally posted by J C
What’s love got to do with it?
This is a science and theology-based debate on the validity of Creation versus Evolution, and specifically the validity of the Genesis account of Creation

Just Half
Everything.

Love surely isn’t EVERYTHING – even for a Christian.
Jesus Christ Himself displayed the full range of Human emotions from sadness and weeping at the tomb of Lazarus to righteous anger at the ‘Money Changers’ in the Temple and the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

Yes, Jesus DID display love towards repentant sinners and told us that the GREATEST emotion was love – but He never claimed that it was the ONLY emotion allowed to Christians!!!

In this debate I try to make my points with love and goodwill towards all participants in so far as this is possible in the ‘cut and thrust’ of a debate.

.....and I also use smileys!!!:D

Just Half
Christ did not die to bring Creation theology to 21st century science. He died to bring Himself and His love.

I agree that Jesus Christ did not die to bring Creation Theology to 21st century science – but He equally didn’t die to bring us 19th century macro-Evolution either!!!

Jesus Christ ACTUALLY died to bring His SALVATION to an irredeemably sinful Humanity – who otherwise would receive His justice and wrath.

Jesus Christ DID love each one of us so much that He actually laid down his life for us.
He also asks that we love one another – but love sometimes demands that we tell people things that they may not want to hear. The truth may sometimes be painful, but it always sets us free!!!

Science and faith co-exist within largely separate spheres of expertise – and neither impinges upon the other throughout most of their respective domains.
Science explains tangible phenomena while faith is legitimately concerned with intangible metaphysical phenomena such as morality, ethics and theology.
However, BOTH science and faith have a legitimate interest in the ‘origins question’.
As there can logically be only one true version of how the Universe and life originated, science is quite entitled to contradict any faith position as to how this happened – if it has proof that ‘the faith position’ is erroneous.
Indeed 19th and 20th century Evolutionary Science has done exactly that, and made no excuses for doing so.

The ‘other side of this coin’ however, is that any biologist who discovers that macro-Evolution is erroneous or any scientist who discovers evidence that supports Direct Creation or Intelligent Design has a moral obligation to publish such research – and the principle of academic freedom should protect them in doing so.

If such research disproves Materialistic Evolution, and especially if it scientifically proves the necessity of God in the origins of life, then such a finding should be VERY IMPORTANT to Christians.
Indeed, the recent support within the Vatican for Intelligent Design research indicates the importance with which Roman Catholic Church, at the highest levels, views this research.

I didn’t expect Christians to passively accept all of the scientific information about Creation and ID presented on this thread – but I would have expected that Christians would have done most of the critical questioning about these issues. However, nearly all of the questions on the technicalities have come from Atheists or Agnostics!!!!

Strange days indeed!!!!


Just Half
Brother, cease your arguments, for here they serve no good purpose.

The Christian is obliged to proclaim the truth of the Word of God – and we are fully assured that such proclamation ALWAYS serves a good purpose.

Could I also point out that a Christian Forum is a particularly appropriate venue to announce scientific breakthroughs, which support the Word of God.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

It explains how the US gets to have its huge STD and teen pregnancy rates, I guess - difficult to be careful with something that is not publicly admissible as existing.

So it is the God-fearing, church-going men and women who account for most of these incidents? Not the immoral, drink & drug, sleep-around, non-religious segment of American society? Not the sort of folks I see or hear reported nightly on TV? Not the Sex-in-the-City, Will & Grace, Friends, social scene, but the Waltons who get infected/pregnant most often?

I must be seeing reality in a mirror - but hey, I'm only a Creationist.

I'm sure your take on it must be as correct as your take on evolution.:D

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Anyhow, as ever, Gibbon had it right when he made this observation about the early church fathers:
Quote:
It was their favourite opinion, that if Adam had preserved his obedience to the Creator, he would have lived for ever in a state of virgin purity, and that some harmless mode of vegetation might have peopled paradise with a race of innocent and immortal beings.

Ah, Gibbon...

I'm not sure he is right about such a generalization on the early fathers. Some of them did indeed go off into crazy thinking - asceticism became a big thing. But it just shows their lack of Biblical knowledge, or maybe more so their imbibing of heathen philosophies. No wonder the Roman Catholic Church emerged out of centuries of such departures from the Bible.

That sex is the God-given means of procreation for Mankind is easily proved. Before Adam sinned, God commanded him and Eve to procreate:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
God made them male and female, with their bits suitable for this purpose:
Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
In the New Testament the issue is even clearer:
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Indeed, the sexual union of man and wife is used as a picture of Christ and the Church:
Ephesians 5:30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Finally, the retreat into asceticism is specifically indentified as a departure from the faith:
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Well, if you prefer to be Biblically literalist, there are quite a number of things that you don't get to enjoy. Of course, many of those who choose to be Biblical literalists would probably not enjoy such things anyway, so the point is moot - hence the "could".

Like JC says, Biblical literalists like my self enjoy many things. Indeed we agree with the Bible when it states:1 Timothy 6:17 Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy.[emphasis mine]

And are all your fellow Christians in agreement, or is this a personal interpretation?

Yes, JC is correct. That is also the view of the Reformed churches and many others. If we think of Ireland, then almost all the types of Presbyterian, Baptist and Brethren would hold to this view. Also the Church of Ireland. (Some of these denominations hold many who no longer believe in their own theology, so I'm speaking of the formal statements of faith, like the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion). Every Irish Baptist church and every member of it must hold to this specific doctrine, this 'eternal security of the saints' view.

Protestant churches not holding to it would be the Methodist and some off-shoots like the Church of the Nazarene.

The Roman Catholic Church also believes true Christians can end up in hell.

My dear, don't quote Revelations as if it were meant to be taken literally. Surely you know better, after all the warnings that have been dished out on this very forum not to do so. It's quite clearly one of the figurative or allegorical bits of the Bible.

JC is correct in pointing out the vast number of the elect. It is not limited to 144,000. You are also correct in pointing out that it is a minority of mankind.

A happy Reformation Day! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_Day

A Mighty Fortress is Our God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mighty_Fortress_is_our_God

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Because creation would mean you have to believe in the God of the Bible - the One you are adamant about refusing to worship. To believe in such a God, but still refuse to worship Him, means you would definitely, not might well be going to Hell. I think that sufficient pyschological pressure to blind you to the truth about creation.

Well, I suppose that's the easy answer - I'm in denial!

If your suggestion were true, why wouldn't I say I was an atheist (thus denying any possibility of God), and that science supported my position (thus borrowing its legitimacy to buttress my denial)?

Would you claim that's the tiny bit of residual honesty making me say I doubt? Except that people in denial don't admit of doubt - it's one of the most obvious characteristics of denial ("methinks he doth protest too much!").

Also, alatrism, for me, is a fully thought-out position, rather than just a cover I pull over my head. I'm not in my teens, you know - I've been an atheist/alatrist 30 years, through births, deaths, marriages, wealth, poverty, hurricanes at sea - everything but foxholes, really.

Any better suggestions?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

So it is the God-fearing, church-going men and women who account for most of these incidents? Not the immoral, drink & drug, sleep-around, non-religious segment of American society? Not the sort of folks I see or hear reported nightly on TV? Not the Sex-in-the-City, Will & Grace, Friends, social scene, but the Waltons who get infected/pregnant most often?

I must be seeing reality in a mirror - but hey, I'm only a Creationist.

I'm sure your take on it must be as correct as your take on evolution.:D

Well, insofar as there are statistical studies available - yes. At a national level, the proportion of believers correlates positively with STD, levels of violence, infant deaths, etc.

And yes, that would be as correct as my take on evolution, as much as statistics can be. Same sort of thing, really - stuff from the fact-based community. You know how it is.

I was sure we went over this one before - not to claim that you accepted it, but that you must have known what I was going to say?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

The arguements against supernatural Creation some 6000 years ago, apply just as well to those against a supernatural Resurrection some 2000 years ago. So the gospel of God's saving work in Christ is as vunerable as His work in Creation.

Can't let this one go either, I'm afraid. There is plenty of scientific evidence that contradicts the Creation as portrayed in Genesis, particularly when you include the Flood - but there is no evidence, or scientific theory, that contradicts the Resurrection.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

psi

You're making stuff up again.

Pubmed citations:
Myopia as a latent phenotype of a pleiotropic gene positively selected for facilitating neurocognitive development, and the effects of environmental factors in its expression.

Why would I bother making stuff up?

The first paragraph from the above paper ACTUALLY makes my point precisely:-
Quote:-
“Myopia has become an almost pandemic problem in many populations. There are compelling evidence to suggest that myopia is a hereditary condition. However, myopia would constitute a definite selection disadvantage during most stages of human evolution, which is incompatible with its moderate to high prevalence in most modern populations.”

1. It accepts that Myopia IS a debilitating condition.
2. It also accepts that Myopia IS an inherited condition.
3. Finally, it accepts that Myopia has spread throughout many populations despite it’s selection disadvantage.

…..because Myopia is inherited this supports my original contention that there is NO correlation between what somebody’s eyes are ‘most used for’ and their ‘sightedness’

……because Myopia has spread throughout many populations this also supports my original point that debilitating conditions (like Myopia) can spread through populations.

The reason for this spread is quite obvious:-
Many ‘harmful’ mutations (like Myopia) DON’T affect fertility or fecundity and ARE therefore passed on and so they DO survive within populations. Natural Selection ISN’T a clinical system that precisely assesses ‘fitness’ – it is pretty much a ‘hit and miss’ affair – and a lack of ‘fitness’ for one particular trait can easily be overcome by the interaction of the presence of ‘fitness’ for another trait or indeed it can be completely over-ridden by strong sexual selection for another trait.
In the case of Myopia, another trait like increased ‘brainpower’ or increased fertility would easily overcome the disadvantages posed by Myopia and result in the increase of Myopia in the population EXACTLY like I said it could.

Equally, some ‘beneficial mutations’ may also never be passed on to progeny – lack of fecundity, genetic masking or sexual aversion to the trait bearer can result in ‘beneficial’ traits never being expressed in populations.

Each individual comes as a ‘package’ of good, bad and indifferent traits. The idea that NS ‘magically’ ensures that only the ‘perfect’ go on to reproduce, is another myth that Evolutionists continue to confuse themselves with.
Nobody is actually ‘perfect’ for ALL traits – and in many cases people suffering from similar genetic disorders are sexually attracted to each other – and so debilitating conditions can spread even faster because of Sexual Selection confounding Natural Selection!!!!

The reason that we have healthy organisms is IN SPITE OF mutations – and NOT because of them. Healthy organisms are the result of a perfect Creation by God and our ever-increasing ‘mutational load’ is leading to more and more genetic PROBLEMS for all of us, as time goes on – and that reminds me I must go get my eyes tested AGAIN!!!!.:D


Original Posting by J C
Is there ever a ‘non-beneficial allele’ in your view, or has plain English ceased to have any discernable meaning ?

psi
Yes there are plenty, anything that leads to sterility or the death of the organism.

So even if I am suffering from congenital blindness – as long as my sperm count and libido are OK (and I am alive) my blindness is somehow ‘beneficial’ ??


psi
the similarities between cancer cells and somatic stem cells are striking leading many to speculate on a common origin.

Of course they have a common origin – cancer cells were ‘normal’ somatic cells BEFORE they switched over to become cancerous!!!!:)


psi
cancer cells, or tumours do differentiate. It is quite a thankful think too, because the folate receptors and antigen targets that the differentiated cancer cells express allow targets for identificationand drug targeting.

Yes, they ‘differentiate’ in a useless kind of way to form a specific malignancy – whereas totipotent foetal stem cells differentiate in a tightly ordered manner to form a baby.


psi
You know, I have about 10 years in the field of genetics, cancer research and physiology and biology, so you're going to have to actually argue a point here. Your baseless fantasies will be shot down one by one.

You know, that you were still 'in nappies' when I first studied Genetics and I have kept abreast of all developments in this field ever since!!!

There is nothing either baseless or fantastic about my claims – and you are the one who first denied that a debilitating (as distinct from a lethal) genetic condition could be transmitted within a population – and THEN cited a paper, which confirmed that Myopia was a DEBILITATING INHERITED CONDITION which HAD indeed spread (to pandemic proportions) in some populations.

BANG, BANG!!!!!:D

psi
Great links there, of course, these are little known publications not widely accepted by geneticists, evolutionists or the general science community.

As a scientist, the most important question is :-
Are the facts in these papers TRUE?

To quote from another publication:-
“It has been known since the 1980s that peppered moths in the wild do not normally rest on tree trunks, and that textbook photographs were staged by gluing or pinning dead moths on trees, or by using live moths that were manually placed on trees during the daylight hours when they are in a dormant state.
Furthermore, additional studies have shown there are discrepancies that contradict the expected results if only bird predation and camouflage were the operative factors at work here.
Included among these are:
1) the heavily polluted areas by Manchester, England, where the proportion of dark-colored moths was never as high as theory predicted,
2) East Anglia, where the proportion of dark-colored moths was high despite lichen-covered trees,
3) South Britain where, despite the introduction of pollution control, the percentage of melanic or dark-colored moths increased, and
4) the Wirral Peninsula where the incidence of dark-colored moths began decreasing before the trees became lighter due to the return of lichens.

Of course, though hailed by scientists as the most spectacular evolutionary change ever witnessed (geneticist P.M. Sheppard) and the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed (biologist Sewall Wright), it is apparent that it demonstrates nothing more than a proportional change in the numbers of two varieties of a pre-existing species of moth, not the creation of a new species.

And, as it turns out, the hypothesized evolutionary reasons for even such changes do not square with the facts.”

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne also agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.
He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real!!!.
[Ref. J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36.]

PS I love you all (and especially Just Half) !!!!:D

hairyheretic

Wolfsbane said:

So it is the God-fearing, church-going men and women who account for most of these incidents? Not the immoral, drink & drug, sleep-around, non-religious segment of American society? Not the sort of folks I see or hear reported nightly on TV? Not the Sex-in-the-City, Will & Grace, Friends, social scene, but the Waltons who get infected/pregnant most often?

Actually, I believe it was.

I seem to recall a study being done some months ago (I'm afraid I can't provide any links or evidence beyond my own memory though) that showed that the rates for teen pregnancy, STD infections and so forth were in fact higher in those areas that relied on the likes of 'just say no' for their sex education.

It was because of their lack of reliable education that when they did engage in sexual activity, they ended up much worse off than those who did receive it.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, JC is correct. That is also the view of the Reformed churches and many others. If we think of Ireland, then almost all the types of Presbyterian, Baptist and Brethren would hold to this view. Also the Church of Ireland. (Some of these denominations hold many who no longer believe in their own theology, so I'm speaking of the formal statements of faith, like the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion). Every Irish Baptist church and every member of it must hold to this specific doctrine, this 'eternal security of the saints' view.

Protestant churches not holding to it would be the Methodist and some off-shoots like the Church of the Nazarene.

The Roman Catholic Church also believes true Christians can end up in hell.

So, er, about 15% of Christians by denomination, then? And pretty much the most recent of the denominations, as well.

I don't know why you think I'm taking a gamble. I have to be entirely wrong - you only need to be a little bit off.

wolfsbane wrote:

JC is correct in pointing out the vast number of the elect. It is not limited to 144,000. You are also correct in pointing out that it is a minority of mankind.

Again, I have a lot of difficulty with the idea that St. John's Revelation of the "vast number" is to be taken literally, while the rest of Revelations isn't. Can you explain the basis for this a little further, perhaps?

cordially,
Scofflaw

gosplan

J C wrote:

Of particular interest, is the ID scientific society called the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID), which can be accessed from the ‘linkblog’ down on the right hand side of the page.

So ID is rapidly becoming a fully fledged peer-reviewed science discipline with it’s own autonomous International Society.

I have a serious problem with some of the links here. It would appear that your science disclipine revolves around proving that some things are unknown or cannot be answered. This does not stand up to any kind of philisophical(either scientific or theological) test.

Disproving evolution does not make creationism correct.

Also, is this thread one mans(JC's) crusade against the unbelievers or is there anyone else involved?

Diogenes

gosplan wrote:

Also, is this thread one mans(JC's) crusade against the unbelievers or is there anyone else involved?

No its more JC's quixotical charge aganist the windmills of logic, science, maths, biology, geology, physics, astro physics, genelogy, and just about every field of science*

We, at home, have now developed a tone of voice (by we I mean my wife) , which she gets when she sees me on the this thread, one of exasperation and fury that is reserved for the dogs when they pee in the house and with me when I engage here. However she accepts that we're more likely to fix the puppies bathroom habits than sort out the irrational behaviour of creationists...

BTW JC the offer stands, one steak left underwater for four months, if you eat it, I'll eat the origin of the species...

*Incidently since JC won't tell us what field of science he comes from, who wants to join in a game of "process of elimination" whereby we work out what field he could hold qualifications in by elimating what fields he could not have qualifications in based on his answers on this thread.

Scofflaw

gosplan wrote:

I have a serious problem with some of the links here. It would appear that your science disclipine revolves around proving that some things are unknown or cannot be answered. This does not stand up to any kind of philisophical(either scientific or theological) test.

Disproving evolution does not make creationism correct.

Also, is this thread one mans(JC's) crusade against the unbelievers or is there anyone else involved?

Well, wolfsbane and BrianCalgary would be our other regular 'crusaders', and others duck in from time to time, such as babyvaio (although he's Muslim).

At this stage, though, the gloves have been off for quite a while, so new Creationist posters tend to get hurt quite quickly. JC, wolfsbane and BC are tough enough for the bare-knuckle stuff, although in JC's case that's because he's actually on another planet (or from, not sure which).

Diogenes wrote:

We, at home, have now developed a tone of voice (by we I mean my wife) , which she gets when she sees me on the this thread, one of exasperation and fury that is reserved for the dogs when they pee in the house and with mewhen I engage here.

Hmm. Parallel evolution there, I think. My wife has similar sentiments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> So it is the God-fearing, church-going men and women who account for most
> of these incidents? Not the immoral, drink & drug, sleep-around, non-religious
> segment of American society?

Oddly enough, the statistics indicate that you are completely correct. However, we've been over this quite a few times before, so there's no point in me finding some statistics on it for you again, because you'll ignore them again. Oh, well!

robindch

> [JC] Why would I bother making stuff up?

Because, in the absence of facts or reason, that's all you're able to do!

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> So it is the God-fearing, church-going men and women who account for most
> of these incidents? Not the immoral, drink & drug, sleep-around, non-religious
> segment of American society?

Oddly enough, the statistics indicate that you are completely correct. However, we've been over this quite a few times before, so there's no point in me finding some statistics on it for you again, because you'll ignore them again. Oh, well!

See also this BBC article on a new Lancet study. In brief, this suggests that STD rates are not linked to promiscuity, but to "social factors such as poverty, mobility and gender equality". So, I'm afraid it's not the sinners being punished for their evil ways, but rather the poor and uneducated being punished for being poor and uneducated. Blessed are the meek, for they shall get AIDS.

Heavens! Maybe a secular progressive society is actually the way forward! Gosh.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Diogenes

Diogenes wrote:

*Incidently since JC won't tell us what field of science he comes from, who wants to join in a game of "process of elimination" whereby we work out what field he could hold qualifications in by elimating what fields he could not have qualifications in based on his answers on this thread.

That might be a pretty short game - I'll hazard a guess of "none of them"

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

Because creation would mean you have to believe in the God of the Bible - the One you are adamant about refusing to worship. To believe in such a God, but still refuse to worship Him, means you would definitely, not might well be going to Hell. I think that sufficient pyschological pressure to blind you to the truth about creation.

Why the bible? There's a lot of creation myths out there. Give me brahma/prajapati any day. And in that case I guess it would mean he would definitely be reincarnated. Hey scofflaw, you wouldn't mind that, would you?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

So it is the God-fearing, church-going men and women who account for most of these incidents?

Yes actually, it is.

It is the contradiction that devout Christians can't understand, because surely God-fearing church going kids aren't ever going to have sex before marriage? But they do. A lot. The problem arises because they are far far less likely to use suitable protection when having sex, either through miss-placed religious belief (condoms are bad) or mis-eductation (whats a condom?).

It is a major problem with organised religious belief that it throws a veil over what people wish was happening and what is actually happening. Devout Christians simply will not accept that their kids, or their neighbours kids or kids in religious school want to have sex. The believe that kids only want to have sex when over stimulated by things like sex on TV, or encouraged by the availablity of condoms. But this is ridiculous head in the sand ignore the issue and hope it goes away posturing.

Teenagers want to have sex because teenagers are biological designed to have sex. The reason devout Christians don't get this is because it makes no sense in a creationist framework. Why would God make the most impressionable age the age when people seek sex the most? Why not make 35 the age people want to start having sex? It must be something else corrupting our children, are teenagers couldn't possible have strong natural desire to do this. If we just block out TV and movies they will return to their natural God given innocent state. That doesn't work because it is based on nonsense. The fact that teenagers want to have sex makes perfect sense biologically, with in an evolutionary framework. And evolution has no moral outlook either way.

So you can't blame anything for make teenagers want to have sex, because nothing is causing it. Teenagers where having sex before TV was invent, before movies where invent. Romeo and Juliet were 14 in Shakespears play, and there seemed nothing unusual about that (Juliets mother was 13 when she married), which tells us that in the 16th century teenagers were getting married and having children before their 15th birthday.

So unless people want to start marrying off their 15 year olds it stands to reason that they will be curious about sex from that age on, and some will be having sex. This is actually happening later in modern society, not earlier

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

Why the bible? There's a lot of creation myths out there. Give me brahma/prajapati any day. And in that case I guess it would mean he would definitely be reincarnated. Hey scofflaw, you wouldn't mind that, would you?

Nah, it'd be cool. For some reason reincarnation always makes more gut sense to me - conservation of information or something (I know, I know).

It's one of the greatest tricks that Creationists pull, isn't it - if it isn't evolution, it has to be literal Biblical Creationism. Bit like, "hey, you're not Irish? You must be Honduran, then."

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Bit like, "hey, you're not Irish? You must be Honduran, then."

Well it might not be evolution. Being a scientific theory it is of course faslafiable, so the possibility that it isn't in fact evolution is a (very slim) chance. The evidence, and the models suggest quite strongly that it was evolution, much stonger than any other plausable theory, but science can always be wrong.

But it certain wasn't Biblical Creationism.

The Biblical Creationist model just doesn't work at all. In fact the model doesn't even work as a model, let alone a model that actually represents any area of reality. Everything else in known science (physics, chemistry and biology) would have to be wrong, everything, for Biblical Creationism to be the correct model of how the universe was created and works.

So JC and Wolfbane can attack evolution all they like, it doesn't make Biblical Creationism any more likely to have happened. Biblical Creationism didn't happen, this fact is independent to if evolution does or does not happen.