The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

pH
Is there anything that you won't argue about, ………………….

…………..If you don't like 'merged' theads have a look at this one :
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=248957

Yes, the “Word Association” thread has clocked up 11,200 ‘posts’!!!!
However, could I suggest that it is rather easy to ‘run up’ posting numbers when the ‘posts’ consist of SINGLE WORDS!!!

On that basis (with an average of 100 words per post) our thread would have over 400,000 ‘posts’!!!!:rolleyes:

……and when it comes to ‘hits’ our thread ‘leaves them all for dust’ – except for the MEGAMERGER thread (that has combined over TEN other threads) !!!!!


violatom
The reason we don't have any "close legged quadrupeds" or whatever you called them that are not mammals today is that mammals are the predominant life form today that filled an evolutionary niche when previous similar animals BECAME EXTINCT.

Mammals may be dominant today – but they are hardly PREDOMINANT at only about 4,000 species and representing a fraction of one percent of the Earth's biomass!!!

Be that as it may ...........
……..could I suggest that it is stretching credibility to believe that NO representative organism of the myriad of ‘missing links’ that supposedly existed between reptiles and Mammals didn’t survive in some ecological niche somewhere!!!!

violatom
Heard of the peppered moth? Look it up, evolution in action in a nice simple way that even you might understand.

Shhss, don’t mention the ‘Peppered Moth’.

Did I ever tell you that, the said ‘Peppered Moth’ was one of the reasons why I lost my religious faith in Evolution – when I heard the FULL STORY!!!!.

Here are SOME of the problems with the said Moth, as kindly posted by pH:-
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

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 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


So ‘Peppered Moths’ don’t even show N S in action…………..
……….and even if the Moths HAD performed in line with the Classic Story of colour change in sympathy with their environment via differential survival – such an obviously COSMETIC change would prove NOTHING about the FUNDAMENTAL, irreducibly complex body-structure and biochemical changes required for a Moth to ‘evolve’ into a Mammal!!! :eek:

The ‘Mellanic Moth’ is at best an illustration of Natural Selection within Created Kinds (in fact within ONE SPECIES) – but it proves NOTHING about how over-arching macro-Evolution from ‘Muck to Man’ could arise!!!:cool:


pH
our scientific knowledge evolves over time, mistakes are made and then corrected and new theories come along which explain things better than old ones. It's called progress. It's why the vast majority of children these days survive childbirth and infancy, why you have a life expectancy of more than 45 and why you can type this stuff on a computers for all of us to read.

Creation Scientists have contributed more than their fair share to this progress. All of the ‘Fathers of Modern Science’ were Creationists – and today top scientists who are also Creationists are busy 'beavering away' in all of the above areas of 'Human endeavour'!!!!:D


Scofflaw
JC, we can turn to "God did it" whenever we like. Science does not do so, because the work of science is finding answers - and "God did it" is not an answer, but a full stop.

IF “God did it” then “God did it” is the ONLY answer!!!

Thinking up 'long-winded' erroneous stories about how we ‘Evolved' is certainly NOT science – and it is a complete waste of time - IF "God did it"!!!!


Scofflaw
If Creation Science were a genuine science, you would try to find out how God did it.

Again, IF “God did it” we can never find out HOW God actually did it – unless He tells us.
He has told us that He Created the Universe and all life by a Fiat Act of His Divine Will – which isn’t amenable to scientific evaluation !!!

Science CAN test WHETHER an intelligence Created life – and it has done so and the answer is in the affirmative!!!

Whether this ‘intelligence’ was the God of the Bible is an open scientific question – but the evidence indicating that the Biblical Account of Creation is correct is overwhelming.
Equally, the God of the Bible is the ONLY candidate that ‘fits the bill’ by being a Transcendent Creator God!!!:D


Scofflaw
If, on the other hand, "God did it" is a perfectly acceptable answer, then we can simply say "it happened", which is just as good. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander

Evolution is indeed just saying that – “it happened” - with nothing to back up this assertion!!!

……..and when we scientifically examine the forensic evidence to determine what ACTUALLY happened................

..........both logic and ALL of the evidence points to an intelligent Creator of life – and therefore the superior scientific explanation is that “GOD DID IT”!!!!:D


Scofflaw
"The papers estimate that human and Neanderthal genomes are at least 99.5 percent identical. "There's maybe a three-million base pair difference between Neanderthals and humans, compared to the 30- to 50-million base pair difference between chimpanzees and humans," Rubin said. "

There MAY be a 0.5 % difference between myself and yourself, Scofflaw – but that doesn’t mean that we’re not both fully Human!!!


Scofflaw
I would suggest that you go out and buy "Evolution for Dummies"
………..and actually find out what you are supposed to be arguing against.

"Evolution for Dummies" - there is a joke there somewhere !!!

Maybe you should buy “Evolution for Dummies” – and tell us what Dummies should know about Evolution – or is it the other way round????!!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
Another example of the predictions of Creation Science - that Diamonds were (and therefore could be) formed RAPIDLY – producing commercially important results!!!!
Scofflaw
Now, turning to your ridiculous assertion - Creation Science has no basis for predicting that diamonds can form in periods shorter than, say, a thousand years

Creation Scientist “Diamonds were formed in a matter of days in catastrophic processes during Noah’s Flood”!!!

Evolutionist “Nonsense, Diamonds take millions of years to crystallise – and they are all over a billion years old”!!!!


Customer “Would it be possible to artificially manufacture Diamonds?”


Creation Scientist “No problem, Diamonds were formed in a matter of days in catastrophic processes during Noah’s Flood – when do we start?”!!!

Evolutionist “Nonsense, Diamonds take millions of years to crystallise – and they are all over a billion years old – forget about it”!!!!

………..and the rest, as they say, is History!!!!:D


Wicknight
You are forgetting the best part of Creationism JC, you never have to explain the HOW, or the WHY your deity would do this. Isn't it brilliant!

Yes indeed, God Himself has done the work for us - and explained the HOW and the WHY in the Bible – isn’t it brilliant!!!!:D

Come in Wicknight, the water’s fine – and stop confusing yourself with that all unfounded Evolution stuff.:D

"For God so loved the World that He sent His only begotten son that whosoever might believe on Him shall be saved"


Wicknight
.........Of course everyone knows it wasn't God that did this, it was the giant supernatural badger who created the world.

Is that the latest Evolutionary ‘thinking’ on the ‘origins question’? !!!:D

J C

smemon

God is the adult version of Santa Clause.

………..and Evolution is the juvenile version of the Fairytale about the ‘Frog that turned into a Prince’!!!!:D

..........it took 300 million years........and they all lived happily ever after ...................
............that is, until a Creation Scientist arrived ......... and thus ended the Fairytale!!!!:D


Scofflaw
Now, how could we possibly tell from their genomes that these two are related? We can't possibly tell by breeding studies or genetics that they both belong to a (Dog) Kind, unless we have the original Proto-Dog genome to work with (and……………., we don't seem to have a single preserved example of such a thing).

Yes, indeed researching the Baraminology of the Dog Kind is a tough task – but who better than ‘top flight’ Creation Scientists to tackle it!!!!:cool:

Certainly, Evolutionists trying to cross breed a Dog with a Frog won’t tell us much – and indeed it is very likely to ‘end in tears’ for the Frog !!!!:D


violatom
Is the sun a man/god in a chariot riding across the sky? Easy explaination if you are living in ancient Egypt: the priest said so. But then science came along and said no, thats not quite right. Its a ball of fire that orbits Earth. Then science evolved further and said no, not quite right, we are actually going round the sun. A classic example of why we should not listen solely to religious figures!

…….and another good reason why Creation SCIENTISTS should examine religious questions !!!!:eek:

.........in any event, if Atheistic Scientists want to ask religious questions - why shouldn't Creation Scientists be there to answer them !!!!:D

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

JC, we can turn to "God did it" whenever we like. Science does not do so, because the work of science is finding answers - and "God did it" is not an answer, but a full stop.

IF “God did it” then “God did it” is the ONLY answer!!!

Thinking up 'long-winded' erroneous stories about how we ‘Evolved' is certainly NOT science – and it is a complete waste of time - IF "God did it"!!!!

JC wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Now, how could we possibly tell from their genomes that these two are related? We can't possibly tell by breeding studies or genetics that they both belong to a (Dog) Kind, unless we have the original Proto-Dog genome to work with (and……………., we don't seem to have a single preserved example of such a thing).

Yes, indeed researching the Baraminology of the Dog Kind is a tough task – but who better than ‘top flight’ Creation Scientists to tackle it!!!!

Certainly, Evolutionists trying to cross breed a Dog with a Frog won’t tell us much – and indeed it is very likely to ‘end in tears’ for the Frog !!!!

JC wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Another example of the predictions of Creation Science - that Diamonds were (and therefore could be) formed RAPIDLY – producing commercially important results!!!!

Scofflaw wrote:

Now, turning to your ridiculous assertion - Creation Science has no basis for predicting that diamonds can form in periods shorter than, say, a thousand years

Creation Scientist “Diamonds were formed in a matter of days in catastrophic processes during Noah’s Flood”!!!

Evolutionist “Nonsense, Diamonds take millions of years to crystallise – and they are all over a billion years old”!!!!

Customer “Would it be possible to artificially manufacture Diamonds?”

Creation Scientist “No problem, Diamonds were formed in a matter of days in catastrophic processes during Noah’s Flood – when do we start?”!!!

Evolutionist “Nonsense, Diamonds take millions of years to crystallise – and they are all over a billion years old – forget about it”!!!!

………..and the rest, as they say, is History!!!!

JC, it appears that you are too stupid to know when you are not merely wrong, but so completely wrong as to be utterly ridiculous. "Creation Scientists" had nothing to do with the invention of artificial diamonds - but you have simply repeated your assertion in a more foolish way. "Baraminology" cannot work as it is claimed - but you don't understand either how it should work, or why it cannot. "God did it" is not now, and never can be, a scientific answer - something it seems is impossible for you to understand. Also, you are unable to resist my HTF's!

You are, frankly, just flapping your fingers on the keyboard at this stage.

scornfully,
Scofflaw

pH

J C wrote:

pH
Is there anything that you won't argue about, ………………….

…………..If you don't like 'merged' theads have a look at this one :
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=248957

Yes, the “Word Association” thread has clocked up 11,200 ‘posts’!!!!
However, could I suggest that it is rather easy to ‘run up’ posting numbers when the ‘posts’ consist of SINGLE WORDS!!!

On that basis (with an average of 100 words per post) our thread would have over 400,000 ‘posts’!!!!

……and when it comes to ‘hits’ our thread ‘leaves them all for dust’ – except for the MEGAMERGER thread (that has combined over TEN other threads) !!!!!

To be honest I really couldn't care less about which thread has the most hits or posts, I just find it interesting as it shows how you operate in microcosm.

You made an incorrect claim (this thread has the largest number of posts). It was not a subjective claim, but an objective one, which was incorrect. That it was incorrect is an indisputable fact.

What you should have done is accept you are wrong, a simple post, to the effect that "yes, I made a mistake" would have sufficed.

So what do you do? Move the goalposts a little, "Oh that's a merged thread, this thread is the longest un-merged thread". So I give you another thread, because your claim is still incorrect.

What then happens? You still refuse to admit a mistake, now it's about word counts, and if I give you a link to the 'Liverpool transfer rumours' thread, you'll post something inane like 'ours is the longest non-football related, multi-word, non mega-merged thread on boards.ie.

To be honest J C, your dishonesty bores me, you know you're wrong, and if you can't admit a mistake on a silly little thing like that, what hope is there if you realise you are indeed incorrect about combinatorial mathematics or the peppered moth?

Oh and I presume by hits you mean thread views, this one has 43,000 views.

In a way you are on the right track, the thread on boards.ie with the most hits (160,000 views) has a religious theme, you're wrong that it's this one ... it's Jesus LOL

You are wrong on this as you are wrong on all your claims, and here everyone can clearly see that you refuse to admit to your mistakes, however trivial.

gosimeon

Wicknight wrote:

No, belief in Jesus is the definer of Christianity. The Bible (the NT at least) is an attempt by those around him to understand his message. It seems illogical to refuse to apply common sense and reason to the Bible as you would any other reports of events or persons. People make mistakes. If something sounds silly, goes against the little voice in ones head, or just doesn't make sense, its probably a mistake.


No I stated that the notion of love is not the reason for marriage in the Old Testment. Marriage in the old testement is about property and economics.

I agree totally agree. Too many people are getting hung up on the OT and its laws, some of which are absurd.

Would any of the anti-gays on here sleep with their sister in law if they brother died, to reproduce? Of course not, why? It is totally immoral. Yet Levit. instructs it. This is the same book that goes against Gays. If you are going to follow one rule from Levit. blindly then why not folloow them all?

Some laws from Levit. I bet you hardline anti gays break:
-do not plant your field with different kinds of seeds
-do not wear clothes woven of two kinds of material
-do not cut hair at side of beard / clip beard
-
"And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people."

-Do the Levit. followers here support stoning those who disobey Levit.? Do they sacrafice animals as is often ordered?



Face it. Leviticus is a book that contradicts the nature of Christ. It's laws, he did not follow. Yet so many Christians use it as a tool when it suits them - usually for gay bashing.

Hypocrites. A Christian is a follower of Christ, not a blind follower of a set of rules made up for the Levite priesthood that are totally irrelevent to todays society.

gosimeon

Isaiah 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers…

Genesis 3:16 …and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

A census is done where human lives are oddly given a money value. Girls are worth less than boys and children less than a month old are apparently worth nothing.



Leviticus 27:3-7 conducts a census and puts a price on each human life, based on gender and age. To arrange this passage into a price list:


Male, 60+ years: 15 shekels
Female, 60+ years: 10 shekels
Male, 20-60 years: 50 shekels
Female, 20-60 years: 30 shekels
Male, 5-20 years: 20 shekels
Female, 5-20 years: 10 shekels
Male, 1 month-5 years: 5 shekels
Female, 1 month-5 years: 3 shekels



Bottom line: Women are worth somewhere between half and two-thirds the value of men of the same age. Children are worth less than adults.



Another passage which indicates the Biblegod’s distain for girls:



Luke 2:23 …Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord…

---

(NRSV) Exodus 20:17 (“The Tenth Commandment”) You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor.[13]



Fundamentalist Christians want the Ten Commandments posted in court buildings and on government property to send out a message that American laws and justice are based on these commandments. Are they aware of the slavery clause?



There are many examples of slavery in the Bible. The Biblegod blessed Abraham by giving him such abundance, including many slaves (bold emphasis added):



(NRSV) Genesis 24:35 The Lord has greatly blessed my master, and he has become wealthy. He has given him flocks and herds, silver and gold, male and female slaves, camels and donkeys.[14]

---

Above are some quotes, comments and examples of immoral commands contained in the OT. Slavery, sexism, violence, rape, prostitution and the selling of children is perfectly okay then right? Or do you guys pick and choose what OT passages matter and what ones don't?

J C

Scofflaw
dismissively,
Scofflaw

disgusted,
Scofflaw

deriding you
Scofflaw

scornfully,
Scofflaw

I thought that you were a cold, clinical, objective scientist, Scofflaw.......
..............but instead you seem to be a ‘swirling cauldron’ of unbridled passion!!!!:D


Scofflaw
"God did it" is not now, and never can be, a scientific answer - something it seems is impossible for you to understand.

IF “God did it” it will be evident that ‘An Intelligence’ created life and this evidence can be objectively (i.e. scientifically) evaluated.
Whether this ‘intelligence’ was the God of the Bible is an open scientific question – but the evidence indicating that the Biblical Account of Creation is correct is overwhelming

Equally, the God of the Bible is the ONLY candidate that ‘fits the bill’ by being a Transcendent Creator God!!!

The alternative explanation is that Evolution “just happened”.

……..and when we scientifically examine the forensic evidence to determine which ACTUALLY happened...................

Both logic and ALL evidence points to an intelligent Creator of life – and therefore the superior scientific explanation is that “GOD DID IT”!!!!:cool:

I know that as an Atheist, your religious perspective will resist the FACT that God can be scientifically proven to have created life – but there you go – you certainly won't be the first person to suffer a ‘personal faith crisis’ – and you also won't be the last!!!:eek:


pH
To be honest I really couldn't care less about which thread has the most hits or posts,

That makes two of us pH…………
………..but isn’t it interesting that a Christian ‘origins’ thread is right up there in ‘the popularity stakes’ with football threads, politics threads, etc!!!!!:D


gosimeon
Too many people are getting hung up on the OT and its laws, some of which are absurd.

Certainly, Born Again Christians DON’T get hung up on Old Testament Laws – as these Laws DON’T apply to Christians – who live under God’s Grace!!!!!

BTW – this discussion on Old Testament Law is off-topic for this thread – and as it is also a very interesting and very broad topic I would suggest that it be given it’s own well deserved thread.


gosimeon
Would any of the anti-gays on here sleep with their sister in law if they brother died, to reproduce? Of course not, why? It is totally immoral. Yet Levit. instructs it.

Two points need to be made here:-

1. Christians believe in treating all people (including Gays) with respect and dignity. Everybody is made in the image and likeness of God – and Christians are ALL unworthy sinners saved by the Grace of God – through NO MERIT on our part.

2. You may be relieved to know, that unless you are an Old Testament Levite, there is NO OBLIGATION on you to marry your sister-in-law. On the other hand, it would NOT be ‘totally immoral’ if you DID marry your sister-in-law (if your brother had died, for example, and you were single) – and indeed I know of a few cases where such marriages have taken place.:cool:


gosimeon
Leviticus is a book that contradicts the nature of Christ. It's laws, he did not follow.
Many people forget that Jesus Christ WAS an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi – and as such, He was bound by (and obeyed) these Laws.

However, Jesus Christ also came as God to remove people from the condemnation of Law by forgiving the sins of all who repent – and that is why He didn’t condemn, for example, the repentant woman caught in adultery – but actually condemned the unrepentant sinners who were her accusers!!! :cool:


gosimeon
Hypocrites. A Christian is a follower of Christ, not a blind follower of a set of rules made up for the Levite priesthood

You will not find any argument from me on this point.

As I am not a Levite, I DON’T obey the Laws of Leviticus.

I am equally NOT an Anti-Semite - and I therefore wouldn’t criticise a Jew for obeying these Laws.
I accept that some Jews sincerely believe themselves to be still bound by these Laws – and who am I to argue with them on this point?

Jews (correctly) believe that The Messiah is the only person who can free them from the Law – and as they don’t believe that Jesus Christ was The Messiah, some Jews continue to believe that they are still bound by the Law.


gosimeon
Isaiah 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers…
God is both Righteous Judge and Loving Father.

He was in ‘Justice Mode’ in the above verse!!!!:cool:

gosimeon
Genesis 3:16 …and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The full verse reads :”To the Woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”(Amplified Bible).

That was God’s condemnation on EVE for disobeying Him and accepting Satan’s lie that she ‘could be as God’.

It is EQUALLY BALANCED by God’s condemnation on ADAM in verse 3:17 for the same offence!!!:cool:


gosimeon
A census is done where human lives are oddly given a money value. Girls are worth less than boys and children less than a month old are apparently worth nothing.

Leviticus 27:3-7 conducts a census and puts a price on each human life, based on gender and age. To arrange this passage into a price list:

Once again, we are back to Leviticus – which DOESN’T apply to Christians.

The particular verse WASN’T a valuation of the persons value – because we are ALL equally invaluable before God. It was an assessment of the ABILITY TO PAY the Temple Taxes for the upkeep of the Jewish Temple and it’s priesthood as well as a measure of the sacrifice appropriate to people in different stations in life. It was actually a very ‘socially progressive’ taxing system - falling 'heaviest' on adult males and 'lightest' on children and old people!!!!!!


Gosimeon
Bottom line: Women are worth somewhere between half and two-thirds the value of men of the same age. Children are worth less than adults.

Bottom line, women had to pay between a half and two-thirds, of the tax of men.
Ironically, little has changed today – and women (on average) still pay only about two thirds of the tax that men pay – because (on average) women only earn about two thirds of the income that men earn – due to, for example, family-friendly career choices by women like job-sharing, work at home mothers, etc.!!!:cool:


Gosimeon
Another passage which indicates the Biblegod’s distain for girls:

Another passage which shows God’s care for economically vulnerable women, children and the elderly!!!!!:cool:


Gosimeon
Luke 2:23 …Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord…

This was discrimination between first and subsequent Male children – and not between Male and Female children – as you seem to be implying.

God chose the firstborn Male children of the Israelites for a blessing and the firstborn Male children of the Egyptians for a curse – because of the actions of their parents.

The Female children of both peoples didn’t come into the equation – and weren’t the Egyptian girls lucky indeed!!!!:cool:


Gosimeon
(NRSV) Exodus 20:17 (“The Tenth Commandment”) You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor.[13] ………………

…………….There are many examples of slavery in the Bible. The Biblegod blessed Abraham by giving him such abundance, including many slaves (bold emphasis added):

(NRSV) Genesis 24:35 The Lord has greatly blessed my master, and he has become wealthy. He has given him flocks and herds, silver and gold, male and female slaves, camels and donkeys.

We correctly recoil today at the mention of slavery – because our recent experience of slavery was inter-racial, involuntary and grossly exploitative. Indeed, many leading emancipation advocates were Christians who were rightly revolted by the Afro-American Slave Trade.

However, slaves in the Bible tended to be fellow Jews who VOLUNTARILY indentured themselves to their masters - who were then legally obliged to treat them with respect and fairness. Indeed, there was a considerable body of Biblical Law governing the slave’s rights and their Master’s responsibilities.

The relationship between the Biblical Master and Slave was akin to that between an employer and an indentured trainee/employee – a concept that survived in many trades and professions right into the 20th Century.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

I have never claimed that ALL of the material I use is my own – we ALL work ‘on the shoulders of giants’ and use material from diverse sources.
I have NEVER denied that the specific material to which you refer, was from Wikipedia and Britannica and representative of the current scientific position. Indeed that was the REASON that I specifically used this material - because it was fully in line with the conventional scientific position (rather than any interpretation of my own)!!!

The material was mostly definitions though. I don't understand why you posted it, you don't need to tell me what a Quantum Field Theory is, especially not its definition on wikipedia.

J C wrote:

As for ‘modification’ – I am obviously free to add my views on the validity of the current scientific position on any issue – and you are free to disagree with me, if you so wish!!!:cool:

Classic JC.
How is changing to the starting and ending sentences, to sound like you wrote them, an opinion?

However to be fair you did give one opinion. That the methods of Schwinger and Feynman were not equivalent, why do you think this?
In what way are the methods not equivalent?

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
dismissively,
Scofflaw

disgusted,
Scofflaw

deriding you
Scofflaw

scornfully,
Scofflaw

I thought that you were a cold, clinical, objective scientist, Scofflaw.......
..............but instead you seem to be a ‘swirling cauldron’ of unbridled passion!!!!:D

Thanks! It's personal, you understand.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
"God did it" is not now, and never can be, a scientific answer - something it seems is impossible for you to understand.

IF “God did it” it will be evident that ‘An Intelligence’ created life and this evidence can be objectively (i.e. scientifically) evaluated.
Whether this ‘intelligence’ was the God of the Bible is an open scientific question – but the evidence indicating that the Biblical Account of Creation is correct is overwhelming

Equally, the God of the Bible is the ONLY candidate that ‘fits the bill’ by being a Transcendent Creator God!!!

Rubbish. There are umpteen "transcendent creator Gods".

J C wrote:

The alternative explanation is that Evolution “just happened”.

……..and when we scientifically examine the forensic evidence to determine which ACTUALLY happened...................

Both logic and ALL evidence points to an intelligent Creator of life – and therefore the superior scientific explanation is that “GOD DID IT”!!!!:cool:

Again, JC, you seem to have missed the subtle point that the discussion on this thread is about the evidence. You, and those who support Creationism, believe that the evidence supports your position....however, you appear not to be able to demonstrate this to anyone's satisfaction but your own. Simply repeating claims that your position is correct is tiresome - even with the infinite variation of capitalisation and punctuation you bring to bear.

What you have clearly, and repeatedly demonstrated, is that you don't understand basic scientific concepts. Indeed, it has become blindingly obvious that you don't know very much about evolution itself.

J C wrote:

I know that as an Atheist, your religious perspective will resist the FACT that God can be scientifically proven to have created life – but there you go – you certainly won't be the first person to suffer a ‘personal faith crisis’ – and you also won't be the last!!!:eek:

Not at all. Aside from anything else, I am not quite an atheist - I admit the possibility of gods (although not yours).

I am as interested as the next person (probably more so) in any evidence indicating anomalies in our understanding of the world. I am as critical of those who prefer to dismiss such anomalies without investigation as I am of those, like yourself, who automatically assume such anomalies support their chosen position, also without investigation.

J C wrote:

pH
To be honest I really couldn't care less about which thread has the most hits or posts,

That makes two of us pH…………
………..but isn’t it interesting that a Christian ‘origins’ thread is right up there in ‘the popularity stakes’ with football threads, politics threads, etc!!!!!:D

If you've quite finished your goalpost-shifting, I'll just comment that the total number of posters on this thread is quite small, and that the "views" are the usual multiple of posts. That's not so much popularity as obsession.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

However, Jesus Christ also came as God to remove people from the condemnation of Law by forgiving the sins of all who repent – and that is why He didn’t condemn, for example, the repentant woman caught in adultery – but actually condemned the unrepentant sinners who were her accusers!!! :cool:

Maybe you should brush up on your Bible. She wasn't caught in adultery, she was falsely accused by the men who were attempting to trick Jesus. If she was she would have never been brought to the temple in the first place. The moral of that story is not forgive those who repent or do not judge lest ye be judge, as so often is stated, it is actually that falsely accusing people of sins is a sin in of itself. Jesus actually condemned all the time in the New Testament. The reason he didn't condemn this woman was because she hadn't done anything. If she had he probably would have condemned her as well.

I see your grasp of the Bible is on the same level as your grasp of science :rolleyes:

J C

Originlly Posted by J C
(Scofflaw) you seem to be a ‘swirling cauldron’ of unbridled passion!!!!

Scofflaw
Thanks! It's personal, you understand.

I do ……
……..… and I’m ‘all shook up’!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
There are umpteen "transcendent creator Gods".

There are certainly umpteen ‘Gods’ – but ONLY ONE who claims to be SOLE CREATOR and Transcendent to His Creation!!!:cool: :eek:


Scofflaw
JC, you seem to have missed the subtle point that the discussion on this thread is about the evidence. ……………

……………….it has become blindingly obvious that you don't know very much about evolution itself.

Ok Scofflaw, please ‘enlighten me’ (and indeed everybody else) on the EVIDENCE for ‘Muck to Man Evolution’.

A Nobel Prize awaits anybody who can rise to the task – although I don’t ‘fancy your chances’ of doing so!!!!:D :rolleyes:


Scofflaw
I am not quite an atheist - I admit the possibility of gods (although not yours).

Not quite an atheist Eh ......... ‘what is THAT when it is at home' ...... I wonder?’

Jesus Christ loves you, Scofflaw – and He is ‘standing at your door and knocking’!!!:cool:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Originlly Posted by J C
(Scofflaw) you seem to be a ‘swirling cauldron’ of unbridled passion!!!!

Scofflaw
Thanks! It's personal, you understand.

I do ……
……..… and I’m ‘all shook up’!!!:eek:

My pleasure.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
There are umpteen "transcendent creator Gods".

There are certainly umpteen ‘Gods’ – but ONLY ONE who claims to be SOLE CREATOR and Transcendent to His Creation!!!:cool: :eek:

Allah. Ptah. Brahma. The Great Spirit. FSM. Various others at various stages.

In addition, of course, that such a claim exists does not mean that (a) any God made it, (b) the claim means anything. How does claiming to be the sole and transcendent creator establish in any way the truth of the claim? What if I make the claim?

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
JC, you seem to have missed the subtle point that the discussion on this thread is about the evidence. ……………

……………….it has become blindingly obvious that you don't know very much about evolution itself.

Ok Scofflaw, please ‘enlighten me’ (and indeed everybody else) on the EVIDENCE for ‘Muck to Man Evolution’.

A Nobel Prize awaits anybody who can rise to the task – although I don’t ‘fancy your chances’ of doing so!!!!:D :rolleyes:

Sigh. See my earlier point re your misunderstandings of evolution. "Muck to Man" is a term that conflates two different areas of scientific enquiry - evolution and biogenesis.For both we have evidence. In the former case, we also have a deepening understanding of mechanisms - in the latter, our understanding is tentative.

Regrettably, there are no Nobel prizes to be won by demonstrating evolution, since the work would hardly be novel. There would be a Nobel prize for demonstrating Creation, of course....perhaps you?

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
I am not quite an atheist - I admit the possibility of gods (although not yours).

Not quite an atheist Eh ......... ‘what is THAT when it is at home' ...... I wonder?’

Alatrist - non-worshipper. If you were to conclusively demonstrate to me the existence of the Biblical God, I would remain a non-worshipper, because of the revolting nature of the being in question.

Of course, if you were able to demonstrate scientifically the existence of the Biblical God, then faith becomes an irrelevance.

You yourself almost certainly lack any meaningful faith. Either God is provable scientifically, as you claim, in which case there is no need for faith - or he is not, in which case your claim that He is scientifically provable becomes a clear demonstration of the weakness of your faith. Indeed, to search for scientific evidence for God in the first place is to admit the primacy of science over God. You, and your fellow Creationists, are vessels empty of faith - no wonder you make such a noise about it.

Indeed, no wonder you criticise "materialists" so bitterly. You have already admitted that we're right, and that our path to truth is better than the Bible, since you seek to validate it with science. How galling it must be for you.

If the atheist is one who says "there is no God if God cannot be proved scientifically", then, congratulations, fellow atheist.

J C wrote:

Jesus Christ loves you, Scofflaw – and He is ‘standing at your door and knocking’!!!:cool:

He's not, you know, on account of having been dead so very long. It's usually Jehovah's Witnesses.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Wicknight
Maybe you should brush up on your Bible. She wasn't caught in adultery, she was falsely accused by the men who were attempting to trick Jesus. If she was she would have never been brought to the temple in the first place.

Wicknight, Wicknight ……..maybe YOU should ’brush up’ on the Bible!!!

Let us see what The Good Book says in Jn 8:3-4 “When the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery. They made her stand in the middle of the court and put the case before Him. Teacher, they said, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery.”(Amplified Bible)

A few points to note:-

1. Sounds like the woman WAS caught ‘red handed’ in the physical act of adultery alright.

2. She was obviously a 'soft target' dragged out of bed and brought before Jesus to TEST His judgement.........
........ if He judged her guilty (as she obviously was) would He then sentence her to death as demanded by Law? - a sentence which couldn't be carried out under Roman Law - thereby showing His 'poor judgement'.
.............If He found her guilty but didn't sentence her to death as demanded by the Law - He would have no further credibility as a Judge.
..........and if He judged her not guilty, His judgemnent would be perverse to the facts and His credibility as a Rabbi would be destroyed.
.............either way, they thought that they 'had' Him!!!!

3. Jesus was sitting as a Rabbinical Judge in the Jewish Court – so the idea that He didn’t obey the Levitical Laws, as proposed by Gosimeon on a previous post, is thereby disproven.

4. There was another person MISSING from the Court – her adulterous partner – who was equally guilty.

5. She was obviously repentant.


Jesus Christ used the opportunity to make a number of points:-

1. God’s justice would condemn BOTH the woman and her partner for their sinful ACTIONS – and her accusers for their sinful past.

2. God has the power to and will forgive ALL sins provided we ask Him in repentance.

3. The woman was certainly guilty – as Jesus Christ’s parting words to her were to “go on your way AND SIN NO MORE”.


Wicknight
The moral of that story is not forgive those who repent or do not judge lest ye be judge, as so often is stated, it is actually that falsely accusing people of sins is a sin in of itself.

The moral of the story, is that Jesus Christ had the power to forgive sin – something that ONLY The Messiah, as God, could do.......
.......and that was the ONE THING that the woman's accusers hadn't reckoned on !!!!

There was plenty of hypocrisy on display in the Court by the woman’s sinful accusers – but she was ALSO guilty of sin, but repentant.

As a just God He rejected a one-sided case brought against a repentant sinner by a bunch of hypocrites - and turned the attention of the court on her accusers instead - thereby making them ‘take stock’ of their own sinful lives – and it is said that they departed one by one STARTING WITH THE OLDEST FIRST!!!!

This passage of scripture is actually a rebuke to the hypocracy of the unsaved judging the overt sins of OTHERS (while remaining unrepentant of their OWN sins). This theme is repeated in the parable of the person highlighting the speck in somebody else's eye while ignoring the plank in their own. It is also a powerful statement to anybody who would take it upon themselves to TEST God.

It is also NOT a condemnation of anybody judging the overt illegal behaviour of others or of Christians judging the overt unrepented sins of anybody within their Church membership.

Judgement is legitimately handed down in every court in the world (by juries made up of the saved and the unsaved) based upon the objective behaviour of the accused – and Christians ARE also empowered to judge overt unrepented sin within their membership – but they are NOT allowed to judge repented sin or the eternal destiny of anybody – that prerogative is reserved to Jesus Christ AFTER the death of the individual.


Wicknight
Jesus actually condemned all the time in the New Testament.
The reason he didn't condemn this woman was because she hadn't done anything. If she had he probably would have condemned her as well.

Jesus condemned SIN many times – but He NEVER condemned the repentant SINNER.
Jesus came to forgive SINNERS – and not to condemn them.

The reason that He didn’t condemn the woman, wasn’t because she wasn’t guilty – it was because she was guilty, but repentant - and nobody remained to give the eyewitness testimoney required by Jewish Law!!!

………and Jesus Christ will forgive you and me of all of our sins TODAY – provided we believe that He can do so, and we are repentant of our sins!!!!


Wicknigh
I see your grasp of the Bible is on the same level as your grasp of science
Tu ché, Wicknight!!!



BTW – in case anybody accuses me of licence – in my statement that Christians live under God’s Grace – and so aren’t under God’s Law – let me clarify.

Christians aren’t LEGALLY bound by God’s moral laws – otherwise, as sinners, they too would be condemned by these laws.
However, Christians are MORALLY bound by God’s moral laws – and indeed Jesus Christ set far higher standards of moral obedience for Christians than the legally required standards. For example, He said that somebody looking lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart – while the Jewish Law of the time required that somebody had to ACT in an adulterous manner to be guilty of adultery.

The local church has the authority to discourage the wilful licentious abuse of the privileges of salvation, by judging and expelling openly non-repentant sinners within it's membership.
However, it cannot impose punitive sanctions for such behaviour – and where the sinner is clearly repentant NO sanction can or should be applied. Indeed we are assured that there is more rejoicing in Heaven over one repentant sinner than one hundred just people - and the Parable of the Prodigal Son illustrates God's loving feelings for repentant sinners!!!

However, without the ability to expel unrepentent overt sinners, the Church would be impotent to expel, for example, an un-repentent murderer within it's membership - therby leaving it's congregation open to unacceptable moral or indeed physical risk - as well as compromising it's moral witness to the World.

robindch

> This passage of scripture is actually a rebuke to the hypocracy of the
> unsaved judging the overt sins of OTHERS (while remaining unrepentant of
> their OWN sins). This theme is repeated in the parable of the person highlighting
> the speck in somebody else's eye while ignoring the plank in their own.

Good heavens! An unexpectedly useful paragraph which you could also apply to creationists picking at specks in the eyes of biologists, while ignoring the planks in their own

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

I see your grasp of the Bible is on the same level as your grasp of science

Tu ché, Wicknight!!!

....and your grasp of fencing terms....the above most probably means "you who" in Italian, rather than "a touch/touched" the fencing term.

amused,
Scofflaw

J C

Originally Posted by JC

Tu ché, Wicknight!!!

Scofflaw wrote:

....and your grasp of fencing terms....the above most probably means "you who" in Italian, rather than "a touch/touched" the fencing term.

amused,
Scofflaw

OK Touché then Scofflaw!!:rolleyes:

What was that you were saying Robin about 'planks and specks'??:D
......Scofflaw would appear to be in need of your advice


BTW there is a veritable 'forest' of planks 'growing' in the Evolutionist garden - and not even a speck to be seen in the Creationist Realm!!!:D

.....still waiting, Scofflaw for that evidence for Evolution........
.....................................and waiting..................

..........................and waiting.......:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

OK Touché then Scofflaw!!:rolleyes:

Better. Er, you're aware that in the context you used it, you were effectively suggesting that Wicknight was right in what he said?

J C wrote:

What was that you were saying Robin about 'planks and specks'??:D
......Scofflaw would appear to be in need of your advice

I'll admit that mocking the afflicted is hardly my most attractive characteristic.

J C wrote:

.....still waiting, Scofflaw for that evidence for Evolution........
.....................................and waiting..................

..........................and waiting.......:D

I think we might start you more gently than that, JC. You have been offered a lot of evidence for evolution already on this thread - but perhaps it would be better if we clarified your understanding of how evolution is defined first? You do otherwise have a dreadful tendency to mix it up with various other creations of your own, none of which have any hope of being proven.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Giblet

The reason this thread has so many views is because it's comedy gold.

gosimeon

JC you say that the Levite laws don't apply to Christians. If so, why is it quoted on homosexuality so much? I've rarely seen it being used otherwise TBH.

Thanks for the thorough response by the way.

Scofflaw

A quick reminder about which way the official suppression actually runs:

"According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in a report released this week [PDF], Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees.

Furthermore, a book approved by the Service claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood ,rather than by geologic forces, is on sale in the park for more than three years, even though a review was promised to Congress and the press. A Freedom of Information request [PDF] reveals that no review has ever been requested, nor taken place."

Hmm. Political appointees gag Park Rangers on behalf of Creationism. How does this fit with "teach the controversy" and "we only want a fair airing of views"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

A few points to note:-

1. Sounds like the woman WAS caught ‘red handed’ in the physical act of adultery alright.

Red handed by whom? The men who were attempting to get Jesus? Are they a trust worthy source? Not really. Where did they find this woman "red handed" in the act of adultry. Was the town just full of people committing adultry that they could just grab one when they wanted one? The fact is they just dragged an innocent woman up in front of Jesus in an attempt to trick him.

J C wrote:

2. She was obviously a 'soft target' dragged out of bed and brought before Jesus to TEST His judgement.........

She was a soft target and she was dragged before Jesus, but she was also innocent. We know this because dragging an unclean woman into the temple would have been a crime worth of death itself.

J C wrote:

........ if He judged her guilty (as she obviously was) would He then sentence her to death as demanded by Law? - a sentence which couldn't be carried out under Roman Law - thereby showing His 'poor judgement'.

Yes, nicely copied from Wikipedia JC.

But the fact is that that would not have been a problem at all. Jesus didn't seem to care much about the Roman rule anywhere else in the Bible, this wouldn't have been a delema for him now would it.

The real trick was that she was innocent, and mob wanted to get Jesus to condemn an innocent person.

J C wrote:

.............either way, they thought that they 'had' Him!!!!

He didn't judge her at all. He let her go without saying anything because she was innocent.

He let them know that he knew they were bluffing. They all left because they could not stand behind the charge she was guilty. The idea that these men would just suddenly realise the virtue of the "judge not lest ye be judged" idea then and there is ridiculous. You have never had to be free of sin to judge someone else. They would have been perfectly happy to condemn this woman if she was really guilty, they walked away because it was a bluff.

He said is there no one left to condemn this woman (there wasn't because they had all be lying). So he said he would not condemn her either (because he knew all along she was innocent).

She never repented for anything, because she had not done anything in the first place. Unless you can point out the passage here where she repents?


The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."


Where does she repent? Where does she even hint that she is repentant?

J C wrote:

5. She was obviously repentant.

At what point is she "obviously" repentant? She doesn't say or do anything until after she has been set free by Jesus. How can the moral of the story be to forgive those who repent is she never repents. And even if she did repent, repenting because you are about to be stoned is hardly repenting. She is not repentant, she is innocent.

Otherwise the story makes no sense. All this "extra" stuff that has been added in over the years to make the story into something that others want it to be is ridiculous. She never repents for anything, and Jesus never forgives her for anything.

JC as someone who puts ultimate weight in the literal reading of the Bible is bizzare that you as well would fall into the trap of adding details to a Biblical story that are not there to give the story a different meaning that was originally intended.

robindch

> Political appointees gag Park Rangers on behalf of Creationism.

I refer the honorable gentleman to the posting I made yesterday Actually, I remember browsing through the Grand Canyon website earlier in the year and having some trouble finding any references to the Canyon being older than "millennia". A problem which has since been put right.

NASA also recorded political interference last January, following the arrival of a 24-year old political appointee who instructed NASA webmasters to alter content to reflect his belief that the Big Bang is "a religious issue".

Both are part of a more general trend within the failed Bush administration to attempt to alter reality to suit its own bizarre ends -- see the Union of Concerned Scientists The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science.

J C

Son Goku
to be fair you did give one opinion. That the methods of Schwinger and Feynman were not equivalent, why do you think this?
In what way are the methods not equivalent?

Professor Schwinger was more mathematically inclined and favoured mathematical rigour in his approach to QFT - while Professor Feynman’s methods were more intuitive (as eximplified by the use of his Feynman diagram in QFT).
In fact, Prof. Schwinger disagreed with Prof. Feynman’s ‘diagram approach’ so much that he banned Feynman Digrams altogether in his class.
..........so it is not only me who thinks that 'the methods of Schwinger and Feynman were not equivalent' - Prof. Schwinger himself ALSO thought so!!!!:eek:

…….and if you don’t believe me – then have a look here :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwinger

Another interesting quote from the Wikipedia article on Prof. Schwinger has echoes in the Creation v ID v Evolution debate in Biological Science – and provides a salutory warning about the tensions between Academic Freedom and the desire to produce conformity:-

“Schwinger took a keen interest in the research of low-energy nuclear fusion reactions (AKA cold fusion). He wrote eight theory papers about it…………. (but) he resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers."

Some people look and say ‘not possible’ – I say ‘why not?’:D :cool:

Prof Schwinger was a Nobel Laureate, who had supervised more than seventy doctoral dissertations (making him one of the most prolific graduate advisors in physics) and he also had FOUR students who have won Nobel prizes.

If such an outstanding academic can have scientific papers refused publication – then a similar fate for the scientific papers on Intelligent Design can only be considred to be an HONOUR!!!:D

Prof Schwinger appeared to believe that a potentially inexhaustible source of energy was available to Mankind - and I for one would like to see his ideas published - and followed up on........
..........and I don't care whether he was an evolutionist or a creationist!!!!


Originally Posted by J C
There are certainly umpteen ‘Gods’ – but ONLY ONE who claims to be SOLE CREATOR and Transcendent to His Creation

Scofflaw
Allah. Ptah. Brahma. The Great Spirit. FSM. Various others at various stages.

The followers if Islam would claim that Allah is the God of the Old Testament.

Brahma is one of millions of Hindu Gods.

The Great Spirit doesn’t claim to be either Transcendent or SOLE Creator.


Scofflaw
In addition, of course, that such a claim exists does not mean that (a) any God made it, (b) the claim means anything. How does claiming to be the sole and transcendent creator establish in any way the truth of the claim? What if I make the claim?

You are correct that the claim, to be the SOLE and TRANSCENDENT CREATOR, only becomes valid when the supporting evidence is observed – which is the case with God.

If you were to make such a claim it would lack credibility because, not being God, you lack the POTENTIAL for such Creation activities.:eek:


Scofflaw
"Muck to Man" is a term that conflates two different areas of scientific enquiry - evolution and biogenesis. For both we have evidence. In the former case, we also have a deepening understanding of mechanisms - in the latter, our understanding is tentative.

Hmmm…..”a deepening of understanding” ………and ……a ”tentative” understanding.

Not very sure of ourselves on Evolution are we, Scofflaw??

…….must do better!!!!:eek:

…….must provide EVIDENCE!!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
Regrettably, there are no Nobel prizes to be won by demonstrating evolution, since the work would hardly be novel.

Proving macro-Evolution would indeed be novel …….. and I would say, MIRACULOUS, myself!!!:D


Scofflaw
Alatrist - non-worshipper. If you were to conclusively demonstrate to me the existence of the Biblical God, I would remain a non-worshipper, because of the revolting nature of the being in question.

……….very interesting!!!!!

……….so even if you INTELLECTUALLY KNEW that God exists – you would EMOTIONALLY REJECT Him.

Psalm 14:1a ALSO confirms that the decision to reject God is an emotional one – and NOT an intellectual one - it says “The fool hath said IN HIS HEART, There is no God.”

I fully accept that the decision to reject God is made with HEART – and not with the HEAD!!!!

Creation Science removes the intellectual basis for Atheism – by scientifically proving that God has Created all life – but as Scofflaw demonstrates, the decision to be saved is an emotional one – i.e. a BELIEF in Jesus Christ.:cool:


Scofflaw
Of course, if you were able to demonstrate scientifically the existence of the Biblical God, then faith becomes an irrelevance.

Not really, the most that science can probably prove is that life was Created by God.

The fact that He loved you and me so much that He died in perfect atonement for our sins and to save us if we believe on Him can ONLY be held through faith – so faith will always be vital for Christians – but it is NOT an unsupported or ‘blind faith’.:eek:


Scofflaw
You yourself almost certainly lack any meaningful faith.

I have a saving faith in Jesus Christ – and that is the most ‘meaningful faith’ that anybody can possess!!!

I also fully accept that you have 'enormous faith' Scofflaw – anybody who believes that the fantastic creature, that undoubtedly you are, could have arisen spontaneously from primordial chemicals – is a person of very great faith indeed.
However, there is one very big problem with your ‘very great faith’ in Evolution – and that is, it won’t save you!!!!!


Scofflaw
Either God is provable scientifically, as you claim, in which case there is no need for faith - or he is not, in which case your claim that He is scientifically provable becomes a clear demonstration of the weakness of your faith. Indeed, to search for scientific evidence for God in the first place is to admit the primacy of science over God.

No Human Endeavour (including science) has primacy over God – but we are not prohibited from scientifically studying the evidence for His existence.

As I have said, even when we find incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a Creator God (as we HAVE) – we still must have FAITH in Jesus Christ if we are to be saved!!!:cool:


Scofflaw
Indeed, no wonder you criticise "materialists" so bitterly. You have already admitted that we're right, and that our path to truth is better than the Bible, since you seek to validate it with science. How galling it must be for you.

I do not bitterly criticise materialists – I have absolute compassion for them in their lost state!!

The ONLY ‘path to truth’ is the Word of God in the Bible – but one’s faith in the Bible can be augmented by the findings of Creation Science
……….or undermined by the (unchallenged) pronouncements of Materialistic Evolution!!!


Scofflaw
If the atheist is one who says "there is no God if God cannot be proved scientifically", then, congratulations, fellow atheist.

I thought that you were an ‘Altatrist’, Scofflaw – so why do you call me a ‘fellow atheist’ – when NEITHER of us are Atheists????

BTW I actually say that “there is a God whose existence CAN be proven scientifically” – so why shouldn’t we do so????


Originally Posted by J C
Jesus Christ loves you, Scofflaw – and He is ‘standing at your door and knocking’!!

Scofflaw
He's not, you know, on account of having been dead so very long

He IS, you know – on account of being very much alive – and He wants to save you!!!!

P.S. – you may be forgetting the fact that Jesus Christ defeated death by rising from the dead on the third day!!

Jesus said in Rev 3:20 “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hears my voice, and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”

Scofflaw

Well, at least someone is prepared to make a stab at listing Created Kinds:

Noah's Ark Zoo, Bristol

Of course, they aren't professionally qualified Baraminologists, and I'm sure their classification of many dinosaurs as "reptiles" will be disputed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Not very sure of ourselves on Evolution are we, Scofflaw??

…….must do better!!!!:eek:

…….must provide EVIDENCE!!!!:eek:

Ha! :rolleyes:

JC you cannot even define what you think is supposed to actually happen with Creationist Kind specialisation, let alone provide a mechanism or evidence for it actually happening.

We have tons of evidence that evolution happens. In fact we know evolution happens. It has been observed multiple times. We have evidence that it happened in the past. A lot of evidence. This evidence has been presented to you but all creationists can do is pick small holes in specific evidence and provide ridiculous other "explinations", ignoring that fact that it is a ton of evidence in the first place.

You on the other hand have nothing to support your idea of specialisation of Biblical kinds at all. There isn't even something that people could pick holes in, no support exists in the first place. By your own admission it doesn't even happen any more so it is not observable (which stangely enough looks the same as if it didn't actually happen in the first place)

In a battle of "who's theory has the most support behind it" you loose JC. Very very badly. You have nothing to support your Creationists theories except the Bible.

If you reject evolution on the grounds that there is not enough evidence to convince you that is fine. But it is the height of scientific hypocracy to reject evolution on this basis yet blindly accept Creationism, which has no evidence for it at all.

Which simply confirms what everyone here already knows, you are not a scientist you are a religious zealot. Evidence doesn't matter to you. Science does not matter to you. Like all Creationists it is only religious dogma that matters to you.

Pathetic :rolleyes:

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Psalm 14:1a ALSO confirms that the decision to reject God is an emotional one – and NOT an intellectual one - it says “The fool hath said IN HIS HEART, There is no God.”

I fully accept that the decision to reject God is made with HEART – and not with the HEAD!!!!

Irony, thy name is JC :rolleyes:

You have to accept that Psalms before you accept that it "confirms" anything at all. If one rejects the Biblic god as being either a lie or not worth worshiping then I doubt they would accept Psalms as being anything but nonsense. If Psalms is bullsh!t then it confirms nothing accept its own nonsense :rolleyes:

Why do Creationists seem incapable of realising that the Bible is only a valid truth if one first accepts that God exists in is worth of listening to?

J C

Scofflaw
You have been offered a lot of evidence for evolution already on this thread - but perhaps it would be better if we clarified your understanding of how evolution is defined first?

Evidence for Evolution would be nice……….

………………….but even a definition would be good, at this stage!!!!!:eek:

...............still waiting .......................and waiting..........though!!:D

Giblet
The reason this thread has so many views is because it's comedy gold.

Who would have thought that a Christian ‘origins’ thread would turn out to be ‘comedy gold’ – with the joke on Evolution??!!!!:eek:


Scofllaw
According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in a report released this week [PDF], Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees.

WHAT are you talking about, Scofflaw??

The Grand Canyon National Park certainly ARE giving an (EVOLUTIONIST) 'estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature' on their official website see here:-
http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old

……and I quote from said website:-

“How old is the Canyon?

That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old.”


Scofllaw
Furthermore, a book approved by the Service claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood ,rather than by geologic forces, is on sale in the park for more than three years, even though a review was promised to Congress and the press.

Firstly, you ERRONEOUSLY claim that the Evolutionist viewpoint is being suppressed by the Park Authorities – when it is clear that nothing of the kind is happening……...............

…….....and then you support an apparent call on ‘Congress and the press’ no less, to have ONE BOOK removed from sale in the Park Bookshop - because it provides conclusive scientific evidence that the Canyon was formed in the aftermath of Noah’s Flood.

Is that is what an Evolutionist calls ‘balance’ or what??? :rolleyes:

I think that BOTH the Evolutionary and Creationist paradigms should be published and referred to by the Park Authorities.

The suppression of EITHER scientific viewpoint would be wrong!!!


Wicknight
Where did they find this woman "red handed" in the act of adultry. Was the town just full of people committing adultry that they could just grab one when they wanted one?

She was obviously a well-know adulteress – and therefore easily ‘caught in the act’ so to speak.:cool:


Wicknight
She was a soft target and she was dragged before Jesus, but she was also innocent. We know this because dragging an unclean woman into the temple would have been a crime worth of death itself.

She was a ‘soft target’ that the authorities knew all about, but ignored in the past, because they knew that they would put themselves into an impossible position (outlined in my previous post) if they ever did charge her.

However, she was guilty (as indeed proven by Jesus Christ’s parting words to her "Go now and leave your life of sin."
ALL women were considered to be ‘potentially unclean’ in the Jewish tradition – due to the possibility that they were having their period.
The fact that they brought this woman into the Temple was because their desire to destroy Jesus Christ’s credibility overcame their 'religious sensibilities' about whether this woman was ‘unclean’.


Wicknight
Jesus didn't seem to care much about the Roman rule anywhere else in the Bible, this wouldn't have been a delema for him now would it.

The ACCUSERS thought that it would have been a dilemma for Jesus on two levels-
1. It could compromise His teaching on loving the sinner.
2. Pronouncing a death sentence that couldn’t be carried out would expose him to ridicule - and possible retribution from the Roman Authorities.


Wicknight
The real trick was that she was innocent, and mob wanted to get Jesus to condemn an innocent person.

I ask you, what dilemma would there be for Jesus in finding an innocent person, innocent ?
– NONE.

The woman DIDN'T say she was innocent either – and the accusers wouldn’t have taken the risk of falsely accusing her – because such an accusation would breach the Ninth Commandment and the punishment for such a false accusation WAS death – and it would certainly result in permanent expulsion from their exhalted positions in the Jewish Religion.:cool:


Wicknight
He (Jesus) let them know that he knew they were bluffing. They all left because they could not stand behind the charge she was guilty.

Oh, NO they didn’t.

They would have actually found THEMSELVES ‘in the dock’ accused of 'false witness' IF the woman was innocent of the charges they had brought!!!:eek:


Wicknight
The idea that these men would just suddenly realise the virtue of the "judge not lest ye be judged" idea then and there is ridiculous. You have never had to be free of sin to judge someone else.

You are correct that you don’t have to be free of sin to judge somebody else’s BEHAVIOUR – we all do it all of the time - and as I have already said every Court in the World does so.

However, unless you are free from SIN you will have no credibility in judging somebody else’s SIN!!!

……….and that was the uncomfortable position that the woman’s accusers found themselves in.

The Bible says that “Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger”.
It is thought that He was actually listing the sins that He knew the accusers to be guilty of – and THAT was what caused their sudden humbled departure!!!!!

Had Jesus merely asked ‘all accusers without sin’ to cast the first stone (without listing THEIR sins for them) – there would have been a veritable stampede of self-rightousness !!!:D

However, when faced with their own sinful lives, they suddenly lost the urge to accuse others of sin and they departed in shame themselves!!!:cool:


Wicknight
She never repented for anything, because she had not done anything in the first place. Unless you can point out the passage here where she repents?
She is certainly not recorded as SAYING that she repented.

….but as repentance is of the heart – saying that one is repentant is superfluous.

It is body language that indicates repentance – and not what one says – and Jesus Christ was able to read her heart – just like He reads your heart and mine!!! :cool:


Wicknight
At what point is she "obviously" repentant? She doesn't say or do anything until after she has been set free by Jesus. How can the moral of the story be to forgive those who repent is she never repents. And even if she did repent, repenting because you are about to be stoned is hardly repenting. She is not repentant, she is innocent.

OK, we’ve established that she was guilty.

We’ve also established that her accusers lost all interest in her guilt and departed in shame - for some pecluliar reason.

So the only question is DID she repent?

Well, Jesus Christ certainly believed that she had repented – and He was there – and He can read everybodies heart – so I believe that she repented.

I also don't believe that she repented because she was about to be stoned – because there was nobody left who wanted to stone her!!!

........so the only logical conclusion was that she repented because she felt in her heart that she was wrong.


Wicknight
JC as someone who puts ultimate weight in the literal reading of the Bible is bizzare that you as well would fall into the trap of adding details to a Biblical story that are not there to give the story a different meaning that was originally intended.

I have added nothing – nor have I taken anything away, from a plain reading and a logical interpretation of the text.:cool:

Indeed it is difficult to think of a passage of scripture that is as fascinating as these few verses - which lay before us the 'Human Condition' - and the fact that in God's eyes there is NO DIFFERENCE between the 'best' of us and the 'worst' of us - and we can therefore only be saved from His wrath by repenting and believing on Jesus Christ.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

A pile of history about personality differences between Schwinger and Feynman.

That's all true, but it doesn't explain how Schwinger and Feynamn's methods aren't equivalent. It explains that Schwinger didn't like them. The fact that Schwinger didn't teach them doesn't mean he didn't think they were equivalent.
For instance I prefer Feynman's methods (because they're easier to understand), but the two methods give the same results in all circumstances I've ever tried them out on.
Are you saying there are situations where the methods give different answers?

Although I think you're taking equivalent to be some kind of value judgement.
In other words you think equivalent means "held in the same regard", where as it actually means they give the same answers for physical questions.

So are you claiming they give different answers?
If you're not, are you claiming that one is better than the other?
If so, which one?

What exactly do you mean when you say they aren't equivalent?

J C wrote:

Prof Schwinger was a Nobel Laureate, who had supervised more than seventy doctoral dissertations (making him one of the most prolific graduate advisors in physics) and he also had FOUR students who have won Nobel prizes.

This is what always surprises me about creationists. The fact that he "Was a Nobel Laureate........", doesn't matter a damn. What makes Schwinger great is the fact that he built QFT. Using his own intuition, he managed to combine Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity. Compared to that his Nobel prize, e.t.c. don't mean a thing.

I'm always surprised when somebody who is supposed to be a scientist says "Julian Schwinger, the Nobel Laureate" as opposed to "Julian Schwinger, the creator of QFT".

You guys always rate scientists by what can be put on a CV.

Prof Schwinger appeared to believe that a potentially inexhaustible source of energy was available to Mankind - and I for one would like to see his ideas published - and followed up on........
..........and I don't care whether he was an evolutionist or a creationist!!!!

Due to massive experimental evidence against it, cold fusion was thought to be impossible. However, because he was rigorous, Schwinger wanted to prove it wasn't possible. Schwinger thought that it was either impossible or possible under extreme circumstances.
The journal referees thought that the case was pretty much closed, so there was no point in publishing papers that talked about the subject, when there were other papers that needed place in the journal.

Remember a paper doesn't just get rejected because "hidebound, reactionary, self-appointed defenders of the orthodoxy" refuse to accept it. It can be rejected because it is trivial or less worthy of note than other papers that month.
Rejection is not always suppression. (Later Cold Fusion papers from Chinese scientists weren't rejected.) His research was followed up on however.

J C

Wicknight
We have tons of evidence that evolution happens. In fact we know evolution happens. It has been observed multiple times. We have evidence that it happened in the past. A lot of evidence.

We seek it here, we seek it there – that elusive Evolution EVI_DENCE!!:eek:


Wicknight
If one rejects the Bible god as being either a lie or not worth worshiping then I doubt they would accept Psalms as being anything but nonsense.

That may be true – but isn’t it STILL amazing that in rejecting God, Scofflaw confirmed that his heart would rule his head ………
……….a fact that is also confirmed by Ps 14:1a which says “The fool hath said IN HIS HEART, There is no God.”:eek:


Wicknight
Why do Creationists seem incapable of realising that the Bible is only a valid truth if one first accepts that God exists in is worth of listening to?

The Word of God is valid truth whether or not one accepts that God exists or not!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Wicknight
If one rejects the Bible god as being either a lie or not worth worshiping then I doubt they would accept Psalms as being anything but nonsense.

That may be true – but isn’t it STILL amazing that in rejecting God, Scofflaw confirmed that his heart would rule his head ………
……….a fact that is also confirmed by Ps 14:1a which says “The fool hath said IN HIS HEART, There is no God.”:eek:

Well, if you're sure that was intended personally, I shall sue for libel.

The point you have missed, of course, is that I have not said any such thing. I have pointed out that my heart rejects God not on the basis of existence/non-existence, as the quote has it, but on the basis of tyranny. It is my head that has decided his non-existence.

Now, normally I am tolerant of your fumbling efforts to misunderstand me, but even my tolerance has limits - and mixing up my head and heart in order to pull off the wrong Bible quote is outwith those mild limits.

So, for your better instruction - repeat after me :

"the Scofflaw hath said IN HIS HEAD, There is no God" (there, I have even followed your eccentric punctuation, to make it easier for you).

The add-on is "the Scofflaw hath said IN HIS HEART, I reject God".

Now, if you really cannot understand that, please keep that sad piece of news to yourself.

cordially,
Scofflaw