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
-
Looks like I have missed a lot of theological fun this past week. I'm glad to be back for short while and maybe can catch up on these and previous posts.
As ever, I'm impressed by the spectrum of knowledge exhibited
:
From the lofty Scofflaw:
God is ineffable, unknowable, moves in mysterious ways, and is far beyond
through the practical robindch:human understanding.
But we know he hates fags.
to the impulsive bluewolf:The shrimps, the shrimps. Don't forget the abominable shrimps!And figs
To Scofflaw's point: Yes and No. God is angry with the wicked every day - homosexuals fall into that catagory. But He also sent His Son to pay for the sins of many homosexuals, having set His love on them in eternity past, and sends His Holy Spirit to convert them from their sinful ways.
To Robin's point: shrimps are part of His good creation. But in teaching the Israelites the pervasiveness of sin and the need for atonement, He used various physical symbols to represent spiritual truths. So the clean/unclean distinctions. This was to serve the people of God in their immature form, but when Christ came to fulfill all things, the physical gave way to the spiritual. The Church is Israel in its maturity and the 'touch not, taste not' laws of childhood no longer apply. It is spiritual uncleaness Christians are to avoid.
Bluewolf is off the mark here, for it was Christ's desire for a fig that initiated the lesson. The point He made by this acted parable seems to be of God coming to Israel for His due worship, and finding it barren He causes it to perish. The application of course is for everyone - God has a right to expect our love, and to be barren of it is to be deserving of Hell:
Matthew 3:10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
wolfsbane wrote:Wicknight, your contribution once again assures me that evolution is nonsense.:)
I would imagine that nothing, not even God himself, could convince you that evolution isn't nonsense.
You have a strong vested interest in not accepting evolution, as you have some how convinced yourself that if evolution is true then your entire religious belief system is incorrect, there is no God, and you aren't going to have a blissful eternal after life in heaven.
Since you have some how done that I don't blame you for refusing to consider evolution (or science in general), though I've always been a bit puzzled how you actually came to this conclusion in the first place considering the majority of Christians don't hold it (not even the Pope)
No, not at all.wolfsbane wrote:You start off alright:
but end up contradicting yourself:
You need to understand the difference between a animal dying in the wild due to lack of fitness to the environment, and dying because a mutation has damaged to organism.
This duck probably would die in the wild due to the environment it found itself in, as having 4 legs would probably be a disadvantage for a duck. I'm only guessing here, there might be an advantage that none of us are considering, the only way to tell is to throw the duck into a pond and see what happens.
But this wouldn't happen quickly, it would take a while. It might not even happen till after the duck has reproduced. Either the duck would not be able to feed itself and would die of starvation, or would itself be eaten by predators that it cannot escape.
Natural selection would not select it because the 4 legs doesn't give much, if any, advantage. Which is why ducks don't have 4 legs. This mutations (or set of mutations I'm not sure if it was just one on its own) has probably happened a hundred thousand times before over the last few thousand years, but each time was not selected by natural selection as it provided no great advantage. That is how NS works.
But you will notice that the mutation itself didn't kill the duck The mutation appears to be harmless, it causes no failure of organs or damage to internal systems. That is what JC claims would happen. JC has on numerous occasions claimed that a mutation that would cause as significant a change in organism would be lethal to the organism.
He claims this in response to the evolutionary theory that mutation can cause significant alteration of an organisms design without damaging the organism itself, and thus can lead to significant adaptation of the organism based on environment.
JC has claimed a number of times that this cannot happen because such a mutation would be lethal to the organism and would cause it to die. Such a mutation can only happen within some mythical predetermined path chosen by God, such as the nylon bug, and that any mutation outside of this path would cause the organism to die.
Now I understand it is confusing keeping up with JC because he literally completely changes what his claims are once they are shown to be nonsense.
After a number of counter examples were presented to him he altered what he was claiming above to say that they wouldn't out right kill the organism, but eventually they would ("semi-lethal"). Which isn't true either. He then claims he was talking about natural selection.
So there are an equal number of times when JC has claimed the exact opposite of the above, stating that he has no problem with genetic mutations not damaging the organism and the reason it wouldn't work is some other reason, which he then goes on to explain and which is probably equally nonsensical.
The problem was the fact that he always goes back to stating that such a mutation would kill the organism by significantly damaging the genome, often only a few weeks later.
And around and around we go. It is part of JCs trick, to keep the argument going. So long as there is an argument going he can convince himself that there is an argument against evolution. It doesn't seem to really concern him that he spends half his time contradicting himself.
You see from JC's position as a Creationist he has to claim these things. If he admits that a mutation can cause a significant alteration to the design of a creature and yet not out right kill the creature, then he loses pretty much his only argument against evolution.
If mutation can cause significant alteration in a creature's design causing it to grow another arm, or another let, or another eye, then that is evolution right there. All you need is time and you have "muck to man" as JC likes to inaccurately describe it.
So from his point of view he has to claim that this isn't possible, that mutation must always cause the organism such damage that it doesn't survive, well before it gets to the natural selection part, because if it gets to the natural selection part some of the mutations will be non-benefital but equally some of them will be benefital.
This argument, coupled with his argument that mutation can never increase the size of an organism genome (an event which has been observed happening) are JC's pillars to argue against evolution.
Actually he says it all the time. In fact he said it in his first postwolfsbane wrote:You misrepresent Creationism (and JC) by saying it holds that any genetic defect is immediately or necessarily fatal. THEY NEVER SAY SUCH A THING.JC wrote:Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time?
He repeated this exactly same "question" on page 107, so clearly he wasn't really listening when countless posters explained to him that most of the time a mutation does absolutely nothing to an organism.
If you like I can dig up all the countless times he has claimed this, or the countless times he has claimed the exact opposite.
If I was a lesser man I would say "Stopping just hearing what you want to hear will do the same for you" ... but being the stronger man I won'twolfsbane wrote:Paying attention to what is actually said will clear your thinking somewhat.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement