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
-
-
-
-
Originally Posted by Wicknight
God inspired meAsiaprod wrote:That's my candidate for post of the year
My candidate for 'post of the year' too!!:D
Is this an indication of a 'Pauline Conversion' on your part, Wicknight??
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Scofflaw said:
Apologies accepted.Sorry - my misinterpretation! How does one tell the difference?
apologies,
Scofflaw
The difference ( I take you to mean between between TEers who are genuine Christians and those who are not) is determined by what they do with the rest of Scripture.
The false believers will be happy to follow through with metaphorising any of the supernatural accounts - the virgin conception of Christ, His resurrection, for example. The true believer will not do so, even if their hermeneutic has no defence against it, because they know this is the essence of the gospel, the truth God has revealed to their hearts.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Scofflaw said:
Apologies accepted.
The difference ( I take you to mean between between TEers who are genuine Christians and those who are not) is determined by what they do with the rest of Scripture.
The false believers will be happy to follow through with metaphorising any of the supernatural accounts - the virgin conception of Christ, His resurrection, for example. The true believer will not do so, even if their hermeneutic has no defence against it, because they know this is the essence of the gospel, the truth God has revealed to their hearts.
Exactly. Believing in Creation is not a corner stone of the Christian faith. I can't stand it when non-creationist Christians are called unfaithful or compromised Christians.
Judge not.....0 -
-
-
wolfsbane wrote:Scofflaw said:
Apologies accepted.
The difference ( I take you to mean between between TEers who are genuine Christians and those who are not) is determined by what they do with the rest of Scripture.
The false believers will be happy to follow through with metaphorising any of the supernatural accounts - the virgin conception of Christ, His resurrection, for example. The true believer will not do so, even if their hermeneutic has no defence against it, because they know this is the essence of the gospel, the truth God has revealed to their hearts.
So, if might be so bold, for you, not taking Genesis literally leads inexorably (and logically) to not taking the rest literally. Which in turn suggests that you are a Creationist because you are a Christian, rather than the reverse.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Talk Origin is great
I with Creationists who post here (yes you JC and Wolfsbane), would check there "facts" against this web page before they post here. It would save a lot of time
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Originally Posted by J C
…….but the words CREATOR and MAKER imply a (short) time limit and a perfect Creation – consistent with a literal Genesis……..
Schuhart
If that was true Creation would be static. It’s not..
……but God doesn’t DIRECTLY CREATE life anymore!!!!
Schuhart
Plus all the stuff that’ll already have been said about billions of years being a short time for an eternal being
Yes, indeed from God’s doubly ETERNAL perspective billions of years would be a short time.
……but the Genesis account wasn’t written FOR God – but BY God for a time-subject Humanity.
……….and when God is addressing people (for whom one thousand years is 365,250 days), the distinction between days and billions of years is very real – and important!!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
…….and the Creeds DON’T even hint at a gradual process of increasing perfection like Evolution!!!!!!
Schuhart
They don’t hint at lots of things. I dare say they don’t hint about the moon landings or the Second World War or the invention of Baked Alaska. So what?
The Creeds are Articles of Faith on the ‘origins question’ when they proclaim that God is “creator/maker of heaven and earth”.
The Second World War or Baked Alaska aren’t mentioned in the Creeds because they aren’t required Articles of Faith of the Episcopal Christian Churches.:D
Originally Posted by J C
………and Creation Science is discovering that God Created life perfectly and rapidly - exactly like He said He did in Genesis 1.
Schuhart
I’m not sure that ‘discovering’ is the right word. Say ‘asserting’ and we can agree, and I can forget I ever posted here.
………but Creation Science is not only DISCOVERING that God Created life perfectly and rapidly – it is also forensically PROVING that this is the case, as well!!!:cool:
Originally Posted by J C
We DO have the free will to have sex whenever we decide – but the outcome ISN’T determined by us – but is overseen by God’s omnipotent sovereignty!!!!
Schuhart
Myself and Mrs Schuhart exercise our free will and commence some Afternoon Delight. After several hours of vigorous coupling, I ejaculate.
… Eh, Em….Quite.....!!!:eek:
Schuhart
Millions of spermatosa are now swimming around inside my significant other in search of an egg to fertilise. The availability of such an egg depends on where my beloved stands with regard to her womanly cycle.
Let us assume she’s ripe for impregnation. Are you suggesting that God practices contraception? There’s a divine condom called ‘God’s omnipotent sovereignty’?
Our conception is via an overtly random process of sexual reproduction – but overseen by God’s omnipotent sovereignty.
People have the free will to copulate – and produce children – but God retains ultimate authority over their lives – and those of their children. There is an interaction between God’s unlimited Sovereignty and Mankind’s limited Free Will – and we see it in every area of our lives from conception to salvation!!
Our free will ISN’T unlimited – and sexual reproduction is an example of one of the limits on our free will.
We DO have the free will to have sex whenever we decide – but the outcome ISN’T determined by us – but is overseen by God’s omnipotent sovereignty!!!!
Schuhart
but God also provided the free will, and the opportunity to sin (why was that tree in Eden?). The analogy I refer to does not require me to program the robot to kill - it only requires me to give it the capacity to do so in the foreknowledge (God's omniscience) that it will do so.
The opportunity to sin is the ‘flip side’ of free will – otherwise it wouldn’t be free will, but pre-programmed behaviour.
God has full sovereignty – and He has overview that we lack.
God did say in Gen 6:6 that He regretted ever creating Mankind, such was the deplorable behaviour of nearly everyone on Earth at the time, just before the Flood.
However, I for one, thank God for allowing me to be born and for saving me to spend an eternity with Him in Heaven.
Scofflaw
I do hope you're not putting too much weight on the idea that dominant traits are always good, because the list in the link rather blows that away.
…….but dominant traits are almost always ‘good’ – or provide variety - and practically ALL deleterious alleles for genetic diseases are recessive.
Some examples of the recessive alleles which are not deleterious but provide variety in humans are as follows:
· Eye colour: The allele for brown eyes is dominant to the recessive a allele for grey, blue / green eyes.
· Attached earlobes: The allele for free earlobes is dominant to the recessive a allele for attached earlobes.
· Tongue rolling: The R allele enables one to roll their tongue into a U shape and is dominant to the r allele (these persons lack this ability).
· Hitchhiker’s thumb: People who can bend the last joint of their thumb back to an angle of 60 degrees or more have the recessive allele h and those who cannot have the dominant allele, H.
· Bent little finger: A person with the dominant allele B can lay their hands flat on a table and while relaxed are able to bend the last joint of the little finger toward the fourth finger. Those with the recessive allele b cannot do this.
· Interlacing fingers: People with the C allele can cross their left thumb over their right thumb when they interlace their fingers. The C allele is dominant over the c allele, which results in the person normally crossing their right thumb over their left.
· PTC tasting: Those with this the dominant allele T trait can detect a bitter taste in paper impregnated with phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) when they chew on it for a few seconds. Those persons with the recessive allele cannot taste this chemical.
· Widow’s peak: The W allele (for widow’s peak, a pointed hairline) is dominant to the allele which produces a straight hairline.
· The A B Blood Groups are dominant to the O Blood Group – and yet the O Blood Group is the most common group in the population.
Scofflaw
the picture of genetic diseases in the human population looks a lot more like it was produced by your 'deleterious traits would accumulate and start producing homozygous recessives in future generations' model
This is what does happen, when the auto-repair systems DON'T function due to mutations affecting them – and a list of some of the MUTATIONS that cause diseases and disorders in Humans are listed here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Scofflaw
Infants and Infant Deaths (Parents would be candidates for a genetic referral):
* 3-5% of all births result in congenital malformations (Robinson, Linden, 1993)
* 0.5% of all newborns have a chromosomal abnormality (Robinson, Linden, 1993)
* 7% of all stillborns have a chromosomal abnormality (Robinson, Linden, 1993)
* 20-30% of all infant deaths are due to genetic disorders (Berry, et al, 1987)
* 30-50% of post-neonatal deaths are due to congenital malformations (Koekelman, Pless, 1998)
Children and Adults (age 1 and above)
* 11.1% of pediatric hospital admissions are for children with genetic disorders (Scriver, et al, 1973)
* 18.5% of pediatric hospitalizations are for children with congenital malformations(Scriver, et al, 1973)
* 50% of individuals found to have mental retardation have a genetic basis for their disability (Emory, Rimoin, 1990)
* 12% of adult hospital admissions are for genetic causes (Emory, Rimoin, 1990)
* 15% of all cancers have an inherited susceptibility (Schneider, 1994)
* 10% of the chronic diseases (heart, diabetes, arthritis) which occur in the adult populations have a significant genetic component (Weatherall, 1985)
Yes, indeed death and genetic disease are widespread – and the result of the mutation of an originally perfect creation.
However, could I point out that, even though we are all afflicted to a greater or lesser degree by diseases with a genetic component, our genomes are still ALMOST PERFECT.
For example, many of the genetic diseases listed above are caused by ONLY ONE defective gene out of over 3 BILLION other perfect genes!!!!
This indicates that :-
1. We were originally created perfect – and we are still almost perfect (genetically).
2. Even one imperfect (point mutation) gene out of 3 billion (base pairs) can cause serious disease.
3. Mutations cause diseases and disorders – but they show no potential to account for the massive amount of organised perfection and complexity observed in the Human Genome – of EVERY Human Being, INCLUDING those afflicted by serious genetic disorders.
Scofflaw
It is, I'm afraid, irrelevant what Fallen Seraph accepts or not, since scientific truth is not determined by posters on this thread. The majority of scientific papers cite the majority of mutations as neutral.
Fallen Seraph is pointing to the obvious truth that the outcome of mutation mistakes are predominantly bad.
As I have already pointed out, you are confusing mutations (which are almost invariably ‘bad’) with genetic diversity (like different eye colours, for example) which are neutral and/or trivial and/or positive…….
……..and the PROOF that Evolutionists ALSO believe that MUTATIONS are almost invariably BAD – is their WISE reluctance to be irradiated or to ingest MUTAGENIC chemicals!!!!!!
Scofflaw
Humanity has an impressive range of genetic diseases.
Yes there are couple of thousand genetic disorders, with many caused by the mutation of just 0.00000003% of an otherwise PERFECT genome (i.e. 99.99999997% perfect)!!!!0 -
Scofflaw
I seem to remember saying that you would make this claim, since it allows you to accept mutation, speciation, and a variety of other things, while claiming that the good derives from 'pre-existing genetic diversity', while the bad results from 'random mutation'.
The truth that “good derives from pre-existing genetic diversity, while the bad results from random mutation” is illustrated by the great effort that is currently being made by all scientists (including evolutionists) to preserve genetic diversity – and the WISE reluctance by all scientists (including evolutionists) to be irradiated or to ingest MUTAGENIC chemicals!!!!:D
Scofflaw
Where is the 'pre-existing genetic diversity' information stored, JC?
On the ‘outbred’ sequences of the genomes of all species.
Selection tends to eliminate this diversity – and it reaches it’s nadir in highly selected (and often highly inbred) specimens - which is a particular problem for some species on the verge of extinction.
Scofflaw
I'd certainly be interested to see varves piled up around a tree, given that varves are characteristic of deep glacial lakes...
Thousands of ‘varve-like’ micro layers were observed to be laid down by the waters of Spirit Lake in just 3 HOURS during the volcanic explosion of Mount St Helens - and there were thousands of tree trunks that had been blown off the sides of the mountain stuck in the mud at the bottom of the lake !!!!:D
Scofflaw
In essence, then, He interferes all the time. JC, you've already accepted mutations, speciation, all that - why not just become a Theistic Evolutionist? That's effectively the position you're asserting by asserting that God chooses the outcome of mating.
God COULD, of course, use a process akin to Theistic Evolution to produce Mankind.
However, He didn’t say that He did – and the evidence indicating that the Biblical Account of Creation is correct, is overwhelming.
Equally, I am NOT suggesting that God DIRECTLY interferes with Human reproduction – but His sovereignty and omnipotence is such that everything works in accordance with His Divine Will.:cool:
Scofflaw
One repeatable observation that cannot be explained means that the theory is not complete. In some cases, it may be something that requires 'rebuilding the theory from the ground up', but not usually.
It is indeed true that one repeatable observation that cannot be explained MAY mean that the theory is merely 'not complete'.
However, the lack of shadows and lensing in the CMB is so fundamental that it requires the rebuilding the Big Bang Theory from the ground up!!!!:eek:
Scofflaw
Ginkgo trees are also 'living fossils'. Er, and again, these wouldn't be, you know, exactly the same individual trees as were fossilised
Yes, but when Ginko trees, Crocodiles, Coelacanth Fish, Wollemi Pines and Lampreys as well as assorted Salamanders, Turtles, Shellfish and diverse insects remain EXACTLY like supposedly 200 million year old fossils of these same creatures, then one must seriously question that these fossils are 200 million years old - and IF they ARE 200 million years old they haven't evolved AT ALL!!.
The idea that selection pressures / mutation rates were inordinately greater on our supposed 'rat-like ancestors' than the Crocodile’s ancestors in primordial swamps is quite preposterous – and the only logical conclusion is that we aren’t descended from Rats – and the Crocodiles have shared the Earth with Mankind for less than 10,000 years!!!
This presents no difficulties for Creationists who know that these fossils are all only a few thousand years old – but the dilemma for the Evolutionist must indeed be great.
They have to try to convince themselves that in the 200 million years that Humans were supposedly evolving from something that looked like a 'Glorified Rat' - Ginko trees, Crocodiles, Coelacanth Fish, Wollemi Pines and Lampreys as well as assorted Salamanders, Turtles, Shellfish and insects remained completely UNCHANGED!!!!:eek:
Robin
…..since a creationist can legitimately (to himself) deny that his own senses and thought processes have anything to do with the conclusion reached, it then becomes quite easy to deny that anybody else has anything worthwhile to contribute, especially if it might suggest that the creationist's reasoning is slightly less than bullet-proof.
The possibility of bias is indeed something that everybody should be aware of.
However, to ensure that this doesn't happen to Creationism, Creation Science exists to objectively and forensically examine repeatably observable EVIDENCE.
The result is that Creation Science, using all of the available diagnostic tools of modern science, is objectively proving the existence of the God of the Bible and specifically His Act of Direct Creation.
Ironically, it is the Evolutionist who now finds him/herself denying their own senses in order to believe that muck could 'haul itself up by it’s own bootstraps' to become Man!!!:D
Not only is ‘Evolutionist logic’ not ‘bullet proof’ – it is so full of holes that ‘bullet riddled’ would be a more accurate description of it’s current unfortunate state!!!:D
Wicknight
My point was more that some fundamentalists Christians (and Jews and Muslims) seem to spend all their time living within their holy book, largely ignoring the world that God is supposed to have created for them to enjoy.
Muslim, Jewish and Christian Creation Scientists are certainly NOT ignoring the World that God created for them.
Creation Science is being pursued PRECISELY in order to examine the (amazing) Universe that God has created for us all to enjoy!!!:D
Asiaprod
Leakey fears the ideological spat may provoke an attack on the priceless collection, one largely found during the 1920s by his paleontologist parents, Louis and Mary Leakey, who passed their fossil-hunting traditions on to him.
The museum, which attracts around 100,000 visitors a year, is taking no chances.
Turkana Boy will be displayed in a private room, with limited access and behind a glass screen with 24-hour closed-circuit TV. Security guards will be at the entrance.
"There are issues about the security," said Dr. Emma Mbua, the head of paleontology at the museum. "These fossils are irreplaceable and we wouldn't want anything to happen to them."
These are indeed very important, irreplaceable fossils and part of the common heritage of Mankind - and nobody should damage them in any way.
I may disagree with some of Richard Leakey’s interpretations of the fossils that both himself and his eminent parents have unearthed, but I commend them all for the obvious commitment and professionalism that they have brought to their Palaeontology endeavours.
Asiaprod
"Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant relation of his," Leakey, who founded the museum's prehistory department, told The Associated Press.
I actually AGREE with Richard Leakey on this one – because Turkana Boy (also known as WT 15000) was a Human Being !!!!!:D
The resemblances between WT 15000 and two controversial Asian erectus forms are clear and decisive. The Turkana Boy possessed the same heavy supraorbital ridges, the same type of receding forehead, and other cranial features as Java and Peking Man. With an estimated age of about 11 years old at death, and a cranial capacity (EndoCranial Volume) of about 900cc, WT 15000 is plainly a human being - even in the post-cranial features.
This young boy stood and walked as fully erect as humans do today. Although the brain capacity is rather small, it is still larger than some juvenile and adult humans of today.
As most of the adult cranial capacity is reached by age 10 or 11, it is likely that the adult ECV of WT 15000 would be no more than about l000-1050cc, which is still well within the modern human range of about 800- 2000cc.
At a height of five feet four inches or 1.6 metres, it is likely that WT 15000 was getting close to full adult height at the time of his death. although there is no possible way to establish final height with certainty.
In all vital respects Turkana Boy was as human as you or me.:D0 -
-
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:Scofflaw
I seem to remember saying that you would make this claim, since it allows you to accept mutation, speciation, and a variety of other things, while claiming that the good derives from 'pre-existing genetic diversity', while the bad results from 'random mutation'.
The truth that “good derives from pre-existing genetic diversity, while the bad results from random mutation” is illustrated by the great effort that is currently being made by all scientists (including evolutionists) to preserve genetic diversity – and the WISE reluctance by all scientists (including evolutionists) to be irradiated or to ingest MUTAGENIC chemicals!!!!:D
So that's a yes, then.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Where is the 'pre-existing genetic diversity' information stored, JC?
On the ‘outbred’ sequences of the genomes of all species.
Selection tends to eliminate this diversity – and it reaches it’s nadir in highly selected (and often highly inbred) specimens - which is a particular problem for some species on the verge of extinction.
So, what you're saying is that when a mutation appears to have done some good, what actually happens is that an immensely distant member of the species with the required 'genetic diversity' flies in and mates with the parent....
Of course, of course, it's all clear now...J C wrote:Scofflaw
I'd certainly be interested to see varves piled up around a tree, given that varves are characteristic of deep glacial lakes...
Thousands of ‘varve-like’ micro layers were observed to be laid down by the waters of Spirit Lake in just 3 HOURS during the volcanic explosion of Mount St Helens - and there were thousands of tree trunks that had been blown off the sides of the mountain stuck in the mud at the bottom of the lake !!!!:D
'Varve-like'? You mean deposited in a lake environment as a sedimentary deposit, with alternating light (chemically deposited) and dark (organic sediment) bands, pollen peaking or only present in the upper part of the dark (winter) layer, where it was trapped in spring? With freshwater diatoms present at twice the abundance in the light (summer) layers as in the dark winter layers? Pollen grains showing the change over many layers from one type of vegetation (say oak/ash woodland) to another (wheat and field weeds)?
Do you mean that, JC? No, clearly you ruddy well don't. You mean thin ash laminae, resulting from turbulent deposition of repeated ashfalls, random changes of chemistry, no diatoms, no pollen, laid down in what is clearly a volcanic environment.
Honestly, you parrot this stuff, and you know nothing about it, nor do you even try to find out.J C wrote:Scofflaw
In essence, then, He interferes all the time. JC, you've already accepted mutations, speciation, all that - why not just become a Theistic Evolutionist? That's effectively the position you're asserting by asserting that God chooses the outcome of mating.
God COULD, of course, use a process akin to Theistic Evolution to produce Mankind.
However, He didn’t say that He did – and the evidence indicating that the Biblical Account of Creation is correct, is overwhelming.
Perhaps it just wasn't required by the Episcopal Christian Churches?J C wrote:Scofflaw
One repeatable observation that cannot be explained means that the theory is not complete. In some cases, it may be something that requires 'rebuilding the theory from the ground up', but not usually.
It is indeed true that one repeatable observation that cannot be explained MAY mean that the theory is merely 'not complete'.
However, the lack of shadows and lensing in the CMB is so fundamental that it requires the rebuilding the Big Bang Theory from the ground up!!!!:eek:
Tell you what - I'm not a physicist, so perhaps you could explain to me how that's the case? Frankly, though, I think this is the usual "if there's just one thing wrong, then you have to throw out the whole thing" and "there's only two choices - evolution or creation".J C wrote:Scofflaw
Ginkgo trees are also 'living fossils'. Er, and again, these wouldn't be, you know, exactly the same individual trees as were fossilised
Yes, but when Ginko trees, Crocodiles, Coelacanth Fish, Wollemi Pines and Lampreys as well as assorted Salamanders, Turtles, Shellfish and diverse insects remain EXACTLY like supposedly 200 million year old fossils of these same creatures, then one must seriously question that these fossils are 200 million years old.
This presents no difficulties for Creationists who know that these fossils are all only a few thousand years old – but the dilemma for the Evolutionist must indeed be great.
Shame that organisms with no living counterpart so very heavily outnumber the ones that do....whither the dinosaurs, the graptolites, trilobites, agnathan fish, great groves of mares-tail trees, giant sloths, mammoths, de yada de yada de yada....J C wrote:They have to try to convince themselves that in the 200 million years that Humans were supposedly evolving from something that looked like a 'Glorified Rat' - Ginko trees, Crocodiles, Coelacanth Fish, Wollemi Pines and Lampreys as well as assorted Salamanders, Turtles, Shellfish and insects remained completely UNCHANGED!!!!:eek:
No, it's really not a problem. Some things work, and they don't change much in gross morphology. Other things don't, and they're gone, we don't see them around any more.J C wrote:The idea that selection pressures / mutation rates were inordinately greater on our supposed 'rat-like ancestors' than the Crocodile’s ancestors in primordial swamps is quite preposterous – and the only logical conclusion is that we aren’t descended from Rats – and the Crocodiles have shared the Earth with Mankind for less than 10,000 years!!!
JC, sweetie, you couldn't tell a logical conclusion from concussion.J C wrote:Robin
…..since a creationist can legitimately (to himself) deny that his own senses and thought processes have anything to do with the conclusion reached, it then becomes quite easy to deny that anybody else has anything worthwhile to contribute, especially if it might suggest that the creationist's reasoning is slightly less than bullet-proof.
The possibility of bias is indeed something that everybody should be aware of.
However, to ensure that this doesn't happen to Creationism, Creation Science exists to objectively and forensically examine repeatably observable EVIDENCE.
By, for example, requiring that its practitioners sign a code of conduct that includes the statement that evidence cannot contradict Scripture - and that if it does appear to, it is false, or not evidence?J C wrote:Ironically, it is the Evolutionist who now finds him/herself denying their own senses in order to believe that muck could 'haul itself up by it’s own bootstraps' to become Man!!!:D
Only in your particular case.
deriding your increasingly bizarre and contradictory claims,
Scofflaw0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement