Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
wolfsbane wrote:Because God has revealed to me the truth: He is the one true God; He created the universe just as He said He did.
What does that even mean? He spoke to you? He appeared before you? He gave you a funny feeling?
According to who? The apostles themselves?wolfsbane wrote:He inspired His apostles to record all that He wanted us to know.wolfsbane wrote:Both the Old testament and New Testament prophets and apostles were not speaking of their own accord, but writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is the Scripture that cannot be broken.
Again that is only what they claim. They would hardly claim otherwise would they :rolleyes:
And Noah?wolfsbane wrote:I fully agree. But starting with perfect genes gave a long period free from serious defect.wolfsbane wrote:God says it did. As I said before, I think I'll take His word on it rather than yours.
God didn't say it did. People who claim to speak for God said it did. But then every religion is full of people who claim to speak for their gods. Some of them must be wrong.0 -
-
-
Ah wicknight, scofflaw, you guys have me laughing aloud here. Brilliant stuff
"You could if you are an idiot. Are you an idiot?"
lol.
It might be time to ignore the trolling though...
Either that or let's come up with our own blatantly incorrect ideas of what creationism are and use those...
although it has so many odd things about it already that I wouldn't know what to introduce...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Wicknight said:
I'm saying that marriage or death is a good choice for those deserving death.Are you actually stating that rape or death is a good choice??? Are you serious?
They were all guilty in God's sight and so marriage or death was justified.I am working from the position that they could not all be guilty of crimes justifying rape or death as punishment.
You miss the reason for the war in the first place. It was the people's guilt. So the position is not one of being sentenced to death because one had sexual experience, but one was spared a deserved death because one hadn't sexual experience.This is actually supported by the Bible. The selection of who will live and who will die is based on the virginity of the women. The women who are sentenced to death are not sentenced to death because they are guilty of a crime, they are sentenced to death because they are not virgins and as such are not useful to the soldiers as future wives. The virgins on the other hand are and instead of being executed are given as sex slaves to the soldiers.
He only punishes the guilty. You have a problem accepting their guilt. But that's because you are a guilty sinner too.God has no right to order suffering for his own amusement, or to rectify his own mistakes.
I have, and even logic denies your position.Not it doesn't. Read it again in the context of the other rules about marriage.
You completely misunderstand what the Orthodox are saying. The death, disease which we inherit is spiritual not our physical biological state. They are saying man sins because he is a sinner by nature - something Protestantism agrees with. They are only denying that man is also guilty of Adam's actual sin.The first Christians did not believe that every child is born in a state of wickedness.
Like the Eastern Orthodox Church still believe, they believed that what was pass on was death and disease. To quote the below article -
"It is not guilt that is passed on, for the Orthodox fathers; it is a condition, a disease."
We are not born in a state of wickedness, we don't inherit our wickedness from Adam. It is our physical biological state the we inherit, that our bodies will grown and die, that is passed on from generation to generation.
This is what the original Christians believed, and this is what the Orthodox Church, would consider themselves the original church, still believe to this day.
He doesn't explain. He expects us to trust His judgement.Then why did he choose the option he did if it displeases him so when he could have chosen from any and all options? That makes very little sense.
I agree, He didn't have to do anything. But He chose to do so. And He chose to do so by the means described. He manipulates all things to accomplish His chosen end, no matter who has planned it any different.It assumes he has to "work" something. Working something means manipulating it within some kind of constraints, to get the best out come. That something humans have to do everyday, but you forget that God is supposed to have completely control over everything, and as such would not have "work" anything to any particular constrain.
Only the constraints of His nature. And He chose to do it this way. Being infinitely wise, it must be the best way.You statement assumes that the benefit cannot come without the suffering. Again, that might hold for humans, often we need to endure suffering for ultimate benefit. But again we do that because we are slaves to the nature world around us. God is not. There are no constraints on him. The benefit could come without the suffering, and vice versa.
I expect so - but they would be wrong.The Hindus might object to that statement
It is not like that classic paradox at all. God's nature is who God is. It is not something external to Him.Are you failing to see the paradox in that statement, or are you choosing to ignore it?
If God is constrained by His nature, then what defined his nature. What ever that "what" is is more powerful that God, since it ultimately defined what God is. But based on Judeo/Christian teaching there is nothing above God. One must conclude that God then constrained his own nature, which is ridiculous.
The classic paradox that deals with this is the question
Can God produce an object that He cannot himself move
God says different.No it wasn't, because the people executed were not guilty of any crime worth of execution.
As I've already said, He doesn't.As I've already said it is immoral for God to order the execution, or rape, of people just because he wants to.
No, I was referring to rapes and murders: the actions of Moses and the Israelites were not that. The actions of the Babylonians, for example, were.They weren't "evil men" Wolfsbane. Read your Bible. They were God's chosen people, working under his orders, even when they objected themselves at the morality of what they were being asked to do. Do you think Moses was an evil man?
You have no proof that they had such moral qualms, but if they had they would have been guilty of justifying sinners. Sinners sometimes have foolish empathy with sinners rather than love to God.Your excuses justify these acts are getting weaker and weaker. These were God's chosen people, ordered to do something by God's messanger Moses, that even they had moral questions about.
Not according to God.No actually it shows they had "issues" with the idea of murdering innocent women and children because God was in a bad mood.
Then it won't matter anyway. We are then all just slime on an obscure planet somewhere in the vastness of the universe. But God's Spirit convinces me otherwise and I have experienced His reality and intervention many times.Why?
What if He is lying to you?
As I said before, His Spirit gives me assurance of His reality.You have never explained why you believe that. Is it because you want to believe it, because you want all the things promised to you if you do believe this?
Also has it occurred to you that the Bible might simply not be the word of God, and as such cannot be relied upon as the truth?
No, I thought about it a lot. I still think about it, remembering my foolishness and ignorance when I was without God. When the Bible makes no sense - rather when I cannot understand what it means - I wait for God to reveal it. I don't need to know it all at once. He knows best what I can handle.God could be lying to us all, or the Bible which is supposed to be his message, could be wrong.
If something described in the Bible makes no sense we have 2 options.
One, the Bible is the word of God but God is deceiving us in what is written.
Two, the Bible is not the infallible word of God.
Of course you appear to take the third option, the "head in the sand, I don't want to think about it" option. Which, ultimately is just a cop-out, the reason why Dawkins describes religion as "the God delusion"
When science describes something that makes no sense, do you:
One, think the scientist/s are lying?
Two, think that they are mistaken?
Three, refuse to think about it?
Or do you think, Further investigation will cause it to make sense?
If you cannot understand this earthly illustration, how will you understand my heavenly one?
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Scofflaw said:
Yes, once Adam and Eve fell, they became subject to deterioriation and death. Their descendants likewise, and they also inherited the defects from their parents. They also became subject enviromental changes, some likely dramatic (the reduction in longevity following the Flood, for example).Even if they were perfect on expulsion, they would have had genetic defects by the time they had children, yes. Mutations c. 175 per generation (that's the 30-year breeding cycle) gives you about 5-6 a year. If you follow what JC claims, you'll see that most of these mutations would be deleterious.
Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”Quote?
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who madethem at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
You will note that the reference to the Edenic event was not just a passing allusion, but was used to enforce a moral imperative.
Matthew 23:34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
The coming destruction of Jerusalem and the Exile of the Jews in AD70 was a literal event, so too then was the murder of Abel in Genesis.
Over 6000 years it is a very recent event.Jumped to? The course of 150 years hardly constitutes 'jumping'.
Other scientists would disagree.I can only presume it all looks the same to you. To a scientist, what they do has some rather obvious faults.
0 -
-
-
wolfsbane wrote:Yes, once Adam and Eve fell, they became subject to deterioriation and death. Their descendants likewise, and they also inherited the defects from their parents. They also became subject enviromental changes, some likely dramatic (the reduction in longevity following the Flood, for example).
The Flood? Did their genes get wet, perhaps? Seriously, though, the existence of such defects in a small breeding pool would have the effects originally described by Wicknight. As a result of the imperfections allowed by the Fall, the original perfection of the genes would rapidly have become irrelevant.
And no, the fall in life expectancy found in the Bible cannot be explained by such a mechanism. It is too sudden, and too large. We should actually see an asymptotic fall in longevity, not multiple generations of extremely long-lived people followed by short-lived ones. Personally, I think that's more likely to be where the account steps from myth to proto-history.wolfsbane wrote:Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who madethem at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
You will note that the reference to the Edenic event was not just a passing allusion, but was used to enforce a moral imperative.
And works equally well if the whole passage is metaphorical, and exists only to enforce that moral imperative.wolfsbane wrote:Matthew 23:34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
The coming destruction of Jerusalem and the Exile of the Jews in AD70 was a literal event, so too then was the murder of Abel in Genesis.
Doesn't follow at all. One is prophecy, the other record.wolfsbane wrote:Over 6000 years it is a very recent event.
Over 6000 years the NT is a recent event. A silly remark.wolfsbane wrote:Other scientists would disagree.
And 99.9% wouldn't. Really, wolfsbane, you can't hold up a handful of scientists as right when discussing what is, or is not, science. For one thing, you lack the scientific expertise to make a relevant judgement.
You are welcome to say that a very small number of scientists agree with you, if you like, but really the claim lacks all credibility when you try to extend it beyond that. A small number of scientists can be found who believe that Elvis is alive, and we can even pick out some Scientologists, I suspect, but that does not make their outlandish ideas any more likely to be the truth - the same applies to you and yours.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
Schuhart
Just to clarify – you are saying God will only interfere with the free will of the person praying.
God doesn’t interfere with our free will, whether we’re praying or not.
However, He does inspire us with His Word in the Bible and He indwells all Christians with His Holy Spirit.
God also restrains Satan so that the capacity of Satan’s evil influence is reduced in the World.
Schuhart
Does this restraint on (Satan and his Host’s) freedom of action prevent them from doing any evil, or does (God) decide to let them do evil sometimes?
God restrains Satan’s malevolent activities in a general way – which results in the attenuation of Satan’s power over the unsaved.
Jesus Christ’s death on the cross permanently broke Satan’s power over the saved – and indeed all Christians actually have the power to rebuke Satan in Jesus Christ’s name.
Satan still has the freedom to tempt people to sin – and when they sin, Satan accuses them before God.
Originally Posted by J C
I think that, if Roman Catholic Evolutionists take the time to reflect on the words CREATOR and MAKER, they will indeed find them to be inconsistent with their belief in God being the EVOLVER of Heaven and Earth!!
Schuhart
Not unless they think it means God personally fathered each of us, and then carried us in Her womb for the full period of gestation.
Both the Apostles and Nicene Creeds confirm that there are three Divine (male) Persons in the One God i.e. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
They also confirm that Jesus Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of a (Human) virgin called Mary.
Finally, could I remind you that God has no womb and He didn’t need a womb because He created the Universe and all life through a fiat act of His divine will i.e. He said but the word ……. and it was done.:D
Originally Posted by J C
Radiometric Dating also doesn’t work in PRACTICE – because erroneous (very large) ages are routinely obtained from rocks of recent KNOWN ages.
Schuhart
I’m not a scientist, so I’m not going to pretend to have technical knowledge that I don’t have. That said, I thought that it was known and acknowledged that carbon dating was not of great use for recent dates.
Radio-Carbon Dating IS the most accurate radiometric dating method – and it is reasonably accurate for dating organic matter with ages up to a few thousand years i.e. RECENT dates.
The maximum theoretical limits of Carbon dating is only 50.000 years (which is only a ‘drop in the ocean’ of supposedly evolutionary time of millions of years, in any event).
The rate of decay of 14 C is such that half of it will convert back to 14 N in 5,730 +/- 40 years. That is the half life of 14C is 5,730 +/- 40 years.
In two half lives or 11,460 years only one quarter will be left and theoretically after 60,000 years less than one thousandth will remain.
However, things are not quite that simple.
Firstly, plants discriminate against CO2 molecules that contain 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected from the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere and so they test “older” than they really are (based upon atmospheric ratios of 14C : 12C).
Secondly, different plants discriminate differently against 14C and this adds further complexity to interpreting radiocarbon “dates” involving their tissue remnants.
Thirdly, the ratio of 14C : 12C in the atmosphere has not been constant – for example, it was higher before the industrial era, when massive burning of ‘fossil fuels’ released vast quantities of CO2 that was depleted in 14C. This makes things that lived during this time appear “older” in terms of carbon dating.
Fourthly, the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the Earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C being produced. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the Sun’s activity.
Fifthly, the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere and the magnetic field varies by up to 100% between different locations on Earth.
The overall strength of the Earth’s magnetic field has been rapidly decreasing – and this decline has been confirmed to be exponential with a half life of only 1400 years – i.e. it is declining at a rate 50% in 1400 years – and so significantly more 14C is now being produced than in the past, making old thinks look even “older” than they really are.
Direct measurement of historically dated objects, such as, for example, plant material in graves of accurately dated tombs, enables the 14C ratio in the atmosphere to be determined and so calibration of the ‘carbon clock’ is possible for the past few thousand years.
My big reservations are however, primarily in relation to radiometric ROCK dating – where very serious dating discrepancies have occurred with many rock samples of known recent ages!!!
ALL radiometric dating methods are based upon the following unproven ASSUMPTIONS:-
1. That the starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much daughter isotope was there).
2. That decay rates remained constant.
3. That the systems were closed so that no parent or daughter isotopes were added or lost throughout the period that that rock has existed
These unproven and unprovable ASSUMPTIONS prevent any reliable dating conclusions being drawn.
Indeed, there are many examples of known recently formed rocks being radiometrically dated at millions of years old.
For example, rock samples taken from submarine lava flows from Kilauea volcano in Hawaii, which are known to have occurred in the 1950’s, have been radiometrically ‘dated’ at 4 million years old.
Equally, the K-Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand during 1949, 1954 and 1975 produced radiometric ages that varied from 0.27 to 3.5 MILLION years old!!
There are numerous other examples including the remains of trees that were radiometrically ‘dated’ at c40 THOUSAND years BP and clearly buried under basalt that flowed over them - which was radiometrically ‘dated’ at c 40 MILLION years BP. Could I remind you that this difference IS 100,000% !!!
In a study by Dr Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research, Basalt rocks from the Uinkaret Plateau of The Grand Canyon (which most Evolutionist Geologists accept as only thousands of years old) had the following DIFFERENT ages ‘established’ by radiometric dating :-
Six Potassium-Argon ages from 10,000 to 117 Million years.
Five Rubidium-Strontium ages from 1.270 Million to 1,390 Million years.
One Rubidium Strontium isochron 1,340 Million years.
One Lead-Lead isochron 2,600 Million years.
Son Goku
What are perfect genes? What makes them perfect?
Defects from incest are simple consequences of the topological nature of the folding of nearby genes, so what is this perfection and how does it get around this problem?
Saying they had perfect genes is an empty claim without an explanation of how it solves the problem of incest.
Every Human Being has hundreds of lethal or semi-lethal alleles – i.e. heterozygous genes that would be fatal in their homozygous recessive forms.
In other words, damage has occurred to half of the gene – and if this half gets matched with another damaged half during sexual reproduction the resultant offspring will suffer death or serious disability.
It is known that close relatives have lethal and semi-lethal alleles on SIMILAR gene loci – while unrelated individuals have DIFFERENT lethal and semi-lethal allele loci.
So, if close relatives mate, the chances of homozygous recessive matches between lethal or semi lethal alleles is much greater than between unrelated individuals – and that is why ‘inbreeding depression’ occurs.
When all organisms were perfect (and didn’t have recessive mutant alleles) in the immediate aftermath of creation, there was no ‘inbreeding depression’ – and so marriage between close relatives was allowed.
There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any significant danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is the main historical reason for banning incest among consenting adults).
Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood when background radiation apparently greatly increased the mutation rates (as measured by the rapid collapse in longevity from several hundred years to an average of 70 years) – and a Law was then given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.
Although not advisable because of our increasing ‘mutation loads’, near cousins may still legally marry – so there shouldn’t be any great wonder about close relatives marrying each other during the immediate subsequent generations from Adam and Eve – and therefore there was NO risk of inbreeding depression with the immediate generations following Adam and Eve – who is stated to be ”the mother of all living (people)” in Gen 3:20.
Scofflaw
In order for Creationism to "explain" this, it resorts to bizarre contortions - some sediments are supposed to be pre-Flood, some Flood, animals are sorted by mysterious hydrological processes that never mix human and dinosaur bones, or indeed the bones of any animals supposed to be of different ages, despite their various sizes, the Earth splits in two, continents slide around at the massive speeds only to mysteriously stop just before historical records begin, water is mysteriously boiled off without boiling anything alive - and on and on through a bewildering and contradictory array of mechanisms, not one of which has ever been observed.
One great big ‘Straw Man’!!!!
Could I gently point out that it is the Evolutionists who believe that the continents are drifting about the Globe like crazed dodgem cars !!!!:eek:
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.:D 0 -
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw
The majority of scientists, worldwide, are religious - suck it up.
I would say that ALL scientists are religious – some believe in Jesus Christ, some in other Gods – and many of the ones with the greatest levels of faith, believe in Materialistic Evolution!!!!:D
Scofflaw
Yes, it's pretty hard for the Theistic Evolutionist, but certainly not impossible.
Assume for a moment that souls evolved as well as bodies.
So now we have evolving (yet eternal) souls!!!:D
It’s hard for Theistic Evolutionists to establish a role for God in Evolution, because Evolution was originally invented (and continues to be used by Atheists) to eliminate God as the originator of life!!!!!:D
Scofflaw
People didn't get the Word of God until they had evolved enough to understand it.
Most of the Skeptics on this thread still don’t get the Word of God!!!!:D
……so have they not evolved sufficiently yet????
Scofflaw
And atheists? We're just throwbacks.
Devolution in action(due to the Fall), I presume!!!!:D
Son Goku
It (The Big Bang) concerns itself with how the universe got from having totally unbroken electroweak symmetry to when galaxies formed. It doesn't attempt to explain where time, matter and energy came from,
Originally Posted by J C
or are Atheists now admitting that they haven’t a clue how energy, time and matter originated
Wicknight
Scientists, atheist or theist, have always admitted that
OK, so this image of everything starting as a ‘singularity’ and exploding outwards in a Big Bang is all an 'inaccuracy' – that Evolutionists have invented to deny Creation and confuse themselves with!!!!:eek:
………….and before we all start another chorus of “oh yes it did / oh no it didn’t” let me stop you in your tracks with the following devastating evidence that the Big Bang NEVER occurred:-
The Background Radiation of the Big Bang has ‘gone up in smoke’ (amongst Evolutionists) and here is a quote from a recent edition of Science Daily on the matter:-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm
University of Alabama at Huntsville scientists are scratching their heads at a finding that may see the big bang “blown away” in the minds of scientists. Big bang advocates believe the cosmic explosion is responsible for the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation we observe. However, scientists have long predicted that galaxy clusters in the universe would deflect the CMB radiation, creating “shadows” in the observable radiation. But when the Alabama scientists measured this effect, they did not find any strong “shadows” as expected.
Equally last year, the same researchers published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have also been seen, but weren't, if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant.
This indicates that the CMB radiation may not be “behind” distant galaxies, but is much closer instead. Since the big bang interpretation REQUIRES the CMB radiation to be behind the farthest galaxies, this new discovery is a devastating blow to the Big Bang Model, and indicates that the CMB radiation cannot be leftover radiation from a Big Bang. Of course, this isn’t the only evidence against a big bang.”
…..and you can read up on the accumulating scientific evidence AGAINST the Big Bang here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang
Very soon there will be as much scientific evidence against the Big Bang as has currently been assembled against macro-Evolution!!!!
Wicknight
Reproduction errors cause mutation. This has been observed.
…..and that is WHY we AVOID sources of mutagenesis – like radioactivity and certain chemicals!!!
Wicknight
Mutation can increase, decrease, or rearrange genetic information. That has been observed.
……just like any serious injury can increase and rearrange the area affected!!!!:D
Wicknight
Mutation can bestown benefit on an organism. This has been observed.
………..just like any serious injury can bestow the (dubious) benefit of some time off from work!!!!:D
Wicknight
Natural selection selects these beneficial mutations based on the environment
This might work with come kind of simple, uni-dimensional organism where selection rested on one trait only.
However, any complex organism is a combination literally billions of traits, some good, some neutral and some bad as well as many traits masked in the heterozygous state.
So NS isn’t able to follow some mythical yellow brick road of increasing utility to eventually produce Man. It would get bogged down with the first ‘self replicating molecule’ as its ‘descendants’ picked up an ever-increasing load of useless or bad traits – with very few good ones emerging – and these in organisms already gravely afflicted with the useless or bad traits!!!!
Wicknight
My friend and I are stick in northern Russia. We want to go look for food. If I put on a woolly coat and go out into a snow storm with a friend who is wearing just a t-shirt the environment will kill my friend. That is blind directing that wearing a t-shirt in the snow is a not good, where as having a coat is beneficial. Natural selection has selected me over my friend, despite the fact that it is not an intelligent process.
Sounds like ‘death by misadventure’ to me!!!
You could equally be killed by a falling tree and your friend could then use your coat to survive.
You could kill a Polar Bear and your friend could survive by ‘clothing’ herself in the Bear’s skin!!!
You could share your coat with your friend or leave her back in base camp while you go out and get a 'take-away' in the local burger joint!!!!
There are an infinite number of scenarios and possible outcomes – and therefore the process ISN’T ‘directed’ - and therefore it doesn’t show any potential to account for the DIRECTIONAL development of the Complex Specified Information observed in life.:cool:
Wicknight
The classic example of blind direction, that even you might understand, is that of a river path. This is completely decided by the environment the river finds itself in. A no point does an intelligence look out over the land and go "This is the best way to go"
Yes indeed, the river can change it’s course tomorrow – and it will still be a river.
…..but if a critical process in a living organism underwent, even a minor change, the organism would DIE!!!
Wicknight
Every species has trillions of individual organisms that suffer something "awful" because of a damaging mutation. But because they suffer awfully this lowers their fitness and this mutation is therefore not selected by natural selection.
Amazingly, I find that most people lead normal healthy lives – and I don’t find any particular correlation between ‘physical fitness’ and ‘fecundity’!!!!
Wicknight
He (God) didn't allow it to happen, he choose the way it happened, a wasteful way of doing it, over a less wasteful, but just as easy, alternative. Which would make him stupid
One organism’s abundant ‘waste’ is another organisms abundant food!!!!
………….and it was all created GOOD by God…………….and it is therefore proof of God’s benevolence !!!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement