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
-
Son Goku wrote:So we have two independant sets of data correlating evolutionary data for a parasite and its host.
Strange, considering the universe was only made 6,000 years ago ...
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Originally Posted by J C
The conception of each Human Being is an interaction between our free will and God’s Divine Providence – and neither are completely autonamous
Schuhart
Hence God is not all powerful.
God IS all-powerful – but He has given us free will, and He has therefore (voluntarily and lovingly) circumscribed His complete omnipotence, as a result.
Originally Posted by J C
they are therefore ‘Creationist Churches’ – because they require their members to proclaim Creeds that confirm God as ‘Creator / Maker’ of Heaven and Earth and all life therein.
Schuhart
Which brings us back to that question of a time limit - which is missing from the creeds you refer to. Hence it is possible to interpret the 'creator' concept as a spiritual thing that means there is no conflict with evolution, as many, if not most, Christians do.
The words ‘Creator’ and ‘Maker’ in the Creeds are not a spiritual thing – they clearly and unambiguously declare God to be the PHYSICAL Creator of the Universe and all life!!!
Could I point out that the words “Maker” and “Creator” remove all doubt that the Early Churches believed in a LITERAL Creation.
They also placed it in the first sentence of their Professions of Faith, such was the critical importance that they attached to definitively answering the ‘origins question’.
These Creeds are STILL mandatory Articles of Faith for all Roman Catholics and within the Anglican and Lutheran Churches as well as the Orthodox Denominations – thereby making all of these Churches officially 'Creationist Churches.'
Equally, Reformed Churches largely believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis thereby making these Confessions 'Creationist Churches' also.
A Theistic Evolutionist could postulate that God (being omnipotent and omniscient) used Evolution instead of Direct Creation to ‘produce’ all life.
However, neither the Bible nor observed reality would support this contention – we have a fossil record with enormous gaps between kinds, living creatures with enormous gaps between kinds and an array of useful proteins with enormous differences between each one of them!!!!
This situation doesn’t indicate gradual evolution – but it is objectively consistent with Direct Creation.:cool:
There isn’t a hint of any form of gradualism or Evolution in the Genesis Account or in the plain statements in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.
The mainstream Churches COULD be wrong in holding to Creationist Creeds (although I believe that they are correct, on this issue).
However, it is completely invalid to argue that somehow the word CREATE in the Creeds actually means EVOLVE!!!
Creation and Evolution are completely separate concepts. A perfect fiat Creation is a reflection of God’s absolute perfection and omnipotence.
On the other hand, ‘Big Picture Evolution’ was originally devised by Materialists in an attempt to explain the origin of life without God.
The power of God is such that He didn’t need to use a process of gradual Evolution to produce life – He is quite capable of producing an instantaneous perfect Creation – He said that he did it in six days, and as all of the observable evidence supports this hypothesis, I believe Him.:cool:
God chose to Directly and rapidly Create life and set the Laws of the Universe in such a way that life couldn’t be spontaneously generated. This was to ensure that there could be no doubt that life was originally produced by Him – and thus no doubt that He exists.
God confirmed this fact in Rom 1:20 “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
Bluewolf
Who stole the cookies from the cookie jar?
I DONT KNOW SO IT MUST BE GOD
“How could muck spontaneously produce life ?”
“I DON’T KNOW SO IT MUST BE ‘EVOLUTION’!!!!”:D
Robin
if you're perfectly right yourself, and somebody is supplying you with information which agrees with you, then it doesn't matter who controls your information supply -- you'll agree without thinking, which is what it's really all about!
So that is HOW Evolutionists continue to believe in the preposterous idea that they magically and spontaneously evolved from muck!!!:D
I suppose it does help not to think too deeply (or at all) about the validity of such a proposition!!!:)
When I THOUGHT about it myself – I came to the conclusion that life couldn’t be spontaneously generated!!!
I THOUGHT about it again – and I became a Creationist!!!!!
Scofflaw
I am afraid that you will find that the properties necessary to support near-vertical walls of that height, and the properties necessary to allow water to cut through material at the rate you imagine, are mutually exclusive.
No!!!!
The Grand Canyon was cut as a result of enormous volumes of water acting over a short period of time on rapidly setting cement-infused sediments.
Originally Posted by JC
I thought that Theistic Evolutionists DIDN’T believe that the ‘origins question’ was IMPORTANT – and yet, here they are setting aside a special Sunday to focus on Evolution and Darwin
Scofflaw
I'm not sure where you got that idea - it's important enough to be at the start of the Nicene Creed, which you may remember?
I fully agree that the ‘origins question’ is very important – but Theistic Evolutionists on this thread have repeatedly asked for the thread to be shut down, because they claimed that it was a waste of time discussing the issue of Creation versus Evolution………
……..and now we find their colleagues organising ‘Darwin Sunday’!!!!
Scofflaw
For the umpteenth time, mutation is not proposed as the mechanism for evolution. Mutation is proposed as one mechanism for generating genetic diversity, and evolution depends on the operation of natural selection on genetic diversity.
Mutations destroy information – and any subsequently selection of the degraded information won’t generate any new information!!!!
Scofflaw
Your attempt to claim that these ash-fall layers are varves doesnt work, because ash-fall layers are not varves.
I didn’t say that these layers were varves – I said that they were ‘varve-like’.
…….and the ‘varve-like’ layers in sedimentary rocks that Evolutionists talk about aren’t varves EITHER!!!:eek:
Scofflaw
we know from direct observation that soils form very slowly indeed - about 1mm in 200-400 years (c. 1-2t/ha/yr). To produce the minimum two foot (609mm) of soil mature trees require takes about 120,000 years.
In the 4000 years since the Flood, the earth has had time to produce a maximum depth of 20mm of soil in any given place - less than an inch.
…….then how do you explain the formation of 3 METRE deep soils in Meath and Kildare – on land that Evolutionists also agree was glaciated less than 5,000 years ago????0 -
Wicknight
If God is pained by something that happened at some point on the universe's time line, he is pained in the same instant of creation, at the same time feeling everything else in relation to what is happening.
Therefore it is absolutely nonsense to describe God having regret, feeling shock or anger at anything that happens. These are human emotions, because humans live inside the time line. We experience one moment to the next and as such our emotional state changes based on what moment we are in at the present time.
That concept doesn't apply to God. God's emotional state does not change because God exists out side of time and as such does not move through time from moment to moment as we do. Though I can understand why men living in a desert 4000 years ago who probably didn't think about this a whole lot, would think it would.
If anything states that God experiences these emotional changes it is wrong. Genesis does, therefore Genesis is wrong.
God is a personal God and therefore He DOES have emotions – of love and righteous anger.
Humans (who are made in God’s image and LIKENESS) also have these emotions !!!!
…..so Genesis IS God’s infallible Word – and He DID regret making Humans – but in His supreme sovereignty God allowed the Human Race to survive via Noah and his family – and I for one am eternally grateful to Him for doing so!!!!!
Originally Posted by J C
For example, a person may be told by a doctor that a parent has only three months to live – and when the parent dies three months later, the pain can be very acute, even though the person knew in advance that the parent was going to die
Wicknight
Are either of those people gods? Do either of those people live outside of time and view all time as a single entity? No .... well then what are you talking about?
The point that I was making is that it is possible to know in advance that something will happen, and still regret that it happens – and that is why God (emotionally) regretted creating Mankind, even though He (intellectually) knew when He created them that they would fall.
In fact the Creation of Mankind is the triumph of God's perfect love over His righteous anger - just like Jesus Christ's death on the cross was the triumph of God's grace over His justice.
Originally Posted by J C
IF your idea WAS VALID then the issue wouldn’t be whether Genesis is LITERAL or not
Wicknight
Trust me, it is valid. I know this because after repeating this paradox for about a year or so on this forum everyone who disagrees just stops discussing it when I bring it up, which is a sure sign that they don't have a response, they can't figure out who it can be wrong though they wish it was, and would rather just not think about it.
I imagine you will do the same....
It isn’t valid - and any Christian, indwelt with the Holy Spirit, could correct you on your mistake.:)
Originally Posted by J C
Your idea would question the very EXISTENCE of God (as you have confirmed in the above quote yourself).
Wicknight
No, it questions the ability of the Bible to accurately describe God, or to speak for God. But then most Christians don't believe the Bible does accurately describe God, though they think it is a good stab at it.
.....but The Bible is the Word of God……..
……..and the Bible is therefore accurate in every respect.
Originally Posted by J C
However, your idea is INVALID as God can, in His sovereignty, regret creating Mankind – because we have used our free wills to defy Him.
Wicknight
No He wouldn't That makes as much sense as saying God can, in His sovereignty, be wrong or make a mistake or cause Himself to not exist anymore.
It is an unworkable paradox.
God would not and cannot regret anything He does because God does not move through time like we do, and regret is a human emotion defined by our passage through time and the change in emotional state.
God, for a start, doesn't have memories. Memories require a movement through time, and a past to actually be remembers. God neither moves through time, nor does He have a past to remember in either. Therefore He cannot regret something He remembers doing in the past because God doesn't have a past.
Secondly God doesn't have a "future" because just like He doesn't move through time to have a past behind Him, He doesn't have a future time to move into. Therefore stating that when God gets to a certain moment He will be pained by something and feel regret is nonsense. There is no "when" from His point of view, He doesn't move through time, He exists above time viewing the entire past present and future of the universe as one single point.
You cannot apply any of the human emotions that require the passage of time to God because God does not move through time. Therefore anything that does this, including Genesis, is being incorrect or inaccurate.
So far the only way any Christians on this forum have ever attempted to explain away this conflict is by using examples based in our universe, using our system of time, and using our emotions that rely on this system of time, just like you did above.
God is BOTH transcendent and imminent. He therefore exists BOTH outside of time AND within time.
Jesus Christ is true God and true Man and existed within time when He was on Earth. Equally, God continues to watch over His Creation within time and His Holy Spirit also indwells Christians within time.
As I have already said, it is entirely possible that God could regret creating Mankind – while knowing in advance that we were going to ‘fall’ – and He still decided to save us afterwards, even though we didn’t deserve to be saved!!!!
Such is the sovereign love and magnanimity of God.:cool:
Wicknight
most seem to simply view God as a very powerful human, albeit confined by the same emotional structures, and by the same rules of time, as we are.
God is indeed all-powerful and He exists outside of time.
……but He is ALSO merciful and He acts within time when He wants to relate to Humans (who are currently bound by time).
He also shares our ‘likeness’ and therefore He does feel emotions.
He is a loving righteous God who wants to save both you and me – and all that He asks is that we believe on Him.
Wicknight
Personally I think it is much better to read the Bible and decide for yourself, freely, what you think makes sense and what doesn't make sense to you, based on your own beliefs and morality. Far to many people hinge their beliefs on what they are told they should believe.
I agree – and the only qualification I would make, is that you should ideally become a Christian indwelt with the Holy Spirit as well, so that you won’t make any mistakes in interpreting the Bible!!!!:)
The Bible is a spiritually discerned book – and it therefore may not be fully understood by the unsaved.
This is confirmed in 1Co 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Scofflaw
God is ineffable, unknowable, moves in mysterious ways, and is far beyond human understanding.
But we know he hates fags.
….. God LOVES all people – and wants to save them – but the decision to be saved is up to each person.
Scofflaw
Is there room out there, do you think, for a church which employs pastors whose sole job is to congratulate you, and remind you that whatever the heck it is you're doing, it's probably God's plan, so keep right on doing that thing?
There are many liberal churches out there.
However ALL Humans are judgemental – it is only the behaviour, which triggers their condemnation that varies.
Some people love sin, but condemn the sinner.
Christians condemn sin, but love the repentant sinner.:cool:
Originally Posted by JimiTime
from a scientifically educated view and on the basis of what science currently knows. Do you think there'll ever be a scientific explaination for the Cause of the ball of cosmos that went boom, i.e. the big bang?
Wicknight
From a scientifically educated view and on the basis of what science currently knows the more honest and truthful answer to that question is - No idea
The ‘cause’ of the Big Bang is the fruitful imagination of Materialists determined to explain the origins of the Universe without God!!!!:D
………..and as Wicknight confirms, Materialists have no idea what caused the Big Bang – because the Big Bang NEVER happened!!!!!:eek:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Robin
Duck born with four legs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/6371901.stm
I look forward to JC explaining how this is completely non-beneficial!
What is ‘beneficial’ about a duck with four legs – when two are adequate for it’s needs?
It wouldn’t know whether it was coming or going!!!!:D
Wicknight
Clearly it is happening along God's path of predetermined genetic diversity since otherwise any mutation would cause the animal to you know, explode. Or combust. Or melt. Or something equally nasty.
A quadruped Duck is a result of a multiplication ERROR – and the condition is DELETERIOUS.
No new genetic information was added to produce a second COPY pair of legs.
Equally, the duck won’t explode – it will just carry on waddling about until it dies – which would be quite quickly in the wild.
Could I also point out that NO improved or different structures were produced – merely two legs where they shouldn’t be.
Equally, the extra legs weren’t produced ‘gradually’ – as would be predicted by Evolution.
Such multiplication errors are relatively common – we have supernumerary nipples in Humans – and supernumerary legs in Ducks.
…………but the bad news for Evolutionists, is that supernumerary nipples and supernumerary legs are functionally USELESS!!!!:D
Wicknight
"This is clearly God trying to confuse evolutionists".
No, Evolutionists are eminently capable of confusing THEMSELVES – and neither God nor ‘four legged ducks’ are needed to trigger the process……….:
………just a little bit of muck and a lot of (imaginary) added time is enough to get Evolutionists 'spontaneously generating' the most amazing stories………:
………like the one about the four legged duck that evolved into a rat which then evolved into a Human!!!!!
An alternative version of the story is the one about a frog that became a prince – it supposedly took many, many millions of years – and a complete body makeover – but unfortunately (for Evolution and the Frog) it was just a fairytale!!!!:D
Wicknight
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.
Could I gently point out that multiplicative errors DON’T tend to be lethal – supernumerary nipples never killed anybody as far as I am aware!!!!:D
Wicknight
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.
No.
An extra COPY of some anatomical structure doesn’t explain the problem that Evolution is addressing – which is the production of a functional anatomical structure, in the first place.
A photocopier can produce any number of copies of an original work – but intelligence IS required to produce the original work.
Ditto for anatomical structures including nipples and duck’s feet !!!!
Originally Posted by Wolfsbane
You misrepresent Creationism (and JC) by saying it holds that any genetic defect is immediately or necessarily fatal. THEY NEVER SAY SUCH A THING
Wicknight
Actually he says it all the time. In fact he said it in his first post
Originally Posted by JC
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?
Firstly, could I point out that I used the words “most of the time” and not “always” in relation to the observed predominance of lethal and semi-lethal mutations.
Secondly, Multiplicative Mutations (like four legged ducks and supernumerary nipples) are amongst the LEAST deleterious category of mutation, because they merely trigger an erroneous copy an existing anatomical feature – and so these mutations don’t usually affect other essential structures – which WOULD prove fatal.
Bluewolf
So bats really are birds and rabbits/hares really do chew their cud?
Ah, yes the FLYING Bats and the CHEWING Rabbits AGAIN!!!!
Deut 14:1-21 was a Dietary Law for the Israelites. It was meant to allow easy identification of Kosher and ‘unclean’ animals by ORDINARY people using SUPERFICIAL characteristics.
Even though both Camelida (which are Ruminants) and Leporidae & Procaviidae (which aren’t Ruminants) all engage in chewing behaviour, these creatures were highlighted in Deut 14:7 as the EXCEPTIONS to the general rule that ‘cud chewing’ animals could be eaten.
Deut 14:7 was NEVER meant to be a scientific means of identifying these animals – it was only meant to assist ordinary Israelites in complying with the Dietary Law.
Similarly all flying creatures, that couldn't be eaten by the Israelites are identified in Deut 14:12-19.
The Bat is included as an ‘unclean’ flying creature Deut 14:18 – next to the other large cateogory of ‘unclean’ flying creatures, the insects, in Deut 14:19.
Could I also point out that ruminants regurgitate their partially digested feed – while rabbits ‘reflect’ their partially digested dung.
The fact that it was the chewing 'dung eaters’ that were declared by God to be ‘unclean’ actually proves the veracity of the Bible.
Science only discovered that Rabbits eat their own dung in the last hundred years – but God correctly declared them to be ‘unclean’ for Kosher Meat purposes over 3,000 years ago!!!!
........and that is why I don't eat Rabbits (and other assorted 'dung chewers') myself!!!!
Our God reigns!!!:D
Scofflaw
Reading recent articles about their use of tools and spears, the evolutionary point of view is obvious - chimps are closely related to us, so not so surprising. From the Creationist point of view - how come?
Have Chimps ‘devolved’ to using spears now???
I recall that over 20 years ago, Chimps were wearing pin-striped suits and making ads for tea!!!!!:D
Some birds use stones as tools and I suppose an Evolutionist could argue that the Dung Beetle has even discovered the ‘wheel’
……….OK, the dung balls are spherical – which would make them three-dimensional ‘wheels’ – and therefore probably an even more impressive achievement for the Dung Beetle, in the minds of Evolutionits !!!!
I can hardly wait for the first Dung Beetle to become a Mechanic – and the first Chimp to become an Evolutionist – or will it be the other way around???:D
Scofflaw
The question is not whether Creation, or abiogenesis, were observed. It is whether they are provable from forensic evidence.
I've used this analogy before, because it's apt - that of a murder trial. The absence of witnesses (observers) does not invalidate the verdict, but means that the verdict must be reached through the examination of evidence.
So do you think that a jury would acquit a murder suspect whose only explanation, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is that “muck must have spontaneously ‘arose’ and killed the victim with a point 22 bullet"???:D
pH
In spite of the importance of antimicrobial resistance, we show that the actual word “evolution” is rarely used in the papers describing this research. Instead, antimicrobial resistance is said to “emerge,” “arise,” or “spread” rather than “evolve.”
It is technically correct to use the terms “emerge,” “arise,” and “spread” of antibiotic resistance – as it DOES arise, emerge and spread from the pre-existing genetic diversity potential of the organisms concerned.
Because the word ‘evolve’ has acquired the image of ‘muck to man evolution’ in the popular mind, it isn’t a precise enough word to SCIENTIFICALLY describe how antibiotic resistance arises, emerges and spreads!!!!:eek:
Originally Posted by Wicknight
I always wondered how one would explain bacterial resistence to a religious person who rejected evolution as simply something that doesn't happen, end of story. Maybe they put bacterial resistence down to Satan or the Fall or something
Scofflaw
Easy. Pre-existing genetic diversity. Next, please!
Actually, I think we have JC on record claiming exactly that.
I’d call that SUCCESS……..
……..one Evolutionist confirming the veracity of Creation Science to another Evolutionist!!!!:D
Robin
Then there's the similar story about the Samurai Crab from Japan which had its seven-and-a-half minutes of fame on Carl Sagan's Cosmos years ago:
http://www.kirainet.com/english/heike-crab/
...but the story, it turns out may be over-stated:
http://www.docbug.com/blog/archives/000701.html
Another SUCCESS………..
……….an Evolutionist debunking the wild imaginings of another Evolutionist!!!!!:D
Son Goku
A good piece of evidence for evolution that I just came across recently, is apparently genetic dating of head lice shows that their population bottlenecked about 100,000 years ago.
Genetic dating of humans indicates that our population bottlenecked 100,000 years ago. So we have two independant sets of data correlating evolutionary data for a parasite and its host
Another SUCCESS……….
………an Evolutionist confirms the veracity of the population bottleneck AKA Noah’s Flood……
……….….he got the date wrong ………
……………….but I would still give him good marks for his efforts in the pursuit of Creation Science excellence!!!!!!:D0 -
-
-
-
-
First evolution was increased adaptation to a specific environment. Later in the thread you demoted it to whether there is any visible external difference to the animals appearance. (To allow you away with that "kinds" crap, e.g. "It still looks like a dog, lol!!")J C wrote:It wouldn’t know whether it was coming or going!!!!:D
Now something only evolves if the animal's body doesn't gain a symmetry you find amusing.
Quit being an eegit and speak sensibly.J C wrote:So do you think that a jury would acquit a murder suspect whose only explanation, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is that “muck must have spontaneously ‘arose’ and killed the victim with a point 22 bullet"???
Except, there were eight such instances. Can you explain what the other seven were?J C wrote:Another SUCCESS……….
………an Evolutionist confirms the veracity of the population bottleneck AKA Noah’s Flood……
……….….he got the date wrong ………
……………….but I would still give him top marks for his efforts in the cause of Creation Science!!!!!!:D0 -
-
-
Originally Posted by J C
God is a personal God and therefore He DOES have emotions – of love and righteous anger
Wicknight
Then he cannot exist outside time and is a slave to time as much as we are ...
You can't have it both ways JC,.
I am not having it both ways – it is God that is BOTH imminent and transcendent – and therefore He exists BOTH outside of AND within time.
God was outside of time when He created time at the moment of the creation of the Universe.
Jesus Christ is true God and true Man and existed within time when He was here on Earth.
Equally, God continues to watch over His Creation within time and His Holy Spirit also indwells Christians within time.
Wicknight
it is a paradox. It doesn't work
It may indeed be paradoxical – but it is also logical, and it does work!!!:D
Wicknight
God, according to your religion, doesn't make an educated guess at what will happen in the future like humans do. He is supposed to see everything in one instance. Therefore he cannot regret anything happens because regret requires that the person be moving through time as humans do.
As I said God cannot exist outside time and experience regret. Paradox
God is ALSO an imminent personal God who exists within time and experiences emotions.
He therefore can emotionally regret Creating Mankind while 'moving through' time - just like humans (who are made in His Image and Likeness) can also experience regret.
The fact that God knew that Man would fall doesn’t lessen His regret when we did fall.
Indeed God was so moved by our self-imposed plight, that He humbled Himself to come down on Earth, as a man to save us!!!!:cool:
Wicknight
That means he exists outside time, since doing that over rules existing in time. If one is not a slave to time then saying he exists in it is irrelevant.
God ISN'T a slave to time – He is sovereign both within and outside of time.
Wicknight
it has never dawned on you the consequences of your belief actually are. So I will give you a bit to think about it ...
The consequences of a belief on Jesus Christ is to be saved and spend an eternity with God in Heaven.
The consequence of a refusal to believe on Jesus Christ is to be eternally lost.
……..so EVERYBODY should certainly take some time out to think about it!!!!!
Originally Posted by J C
God is indeed all-powerful and He exists outside of time.
……but He is ALSO merciful and He acts within time when He wants to relate to Humans (who are currently bound by time).
Wicknight
It is a paradox. I've explained why, more than once. I would be happy to explain it any number of times again. Simply posting back nonsense replies basically saying "no its not, no its not" like a child is ridiculous JC. You don't have a proper way to respond because I suspect you don't know how to respond. You don't have a solution to this one, and your memories Bible dogma or AnswersInGenesis search engine ain't going to help you with this one. You are replying on your own intelligence, which is probably why you don't have a response.
The Oxford Dictionary defines a paradox as a SEEMINGLY “self-contradictory statement or proposition that may in fact be TRUE”
So God’s immanence and transcendence may indeed be paradoxical – but they are also TRUE!!!
You may huff and puff – but ultimately you know that God loves you and wants to save you.
You may run, but you cannot hide from God’s Justice or His Grace – and the decision as to which you will choose is literally a ‘life or death’ decision – which every person must make, of their own free will!!!!
God has confirmed this eternal Human dilemma in Det 30:19b “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
Originally Posted by J C
No new genetic information was added to produce a second COPY pair of legs
Wicknight
The mutation that produced them was added, which was new genetic information. Otherwise the duck would not have mutated.
A photocopier may multiply existing information or it could degrade it – but it never ADDS new information.
Ditto for genetic information with a quadruped Duck!!!!!
New information is produced through a creative act by intelligence.
Ditto with Ducks legs – but NOT with copies thereof !!!:D
Wicknight
There are plenty of animals that would have use for extra limbs.
An extra pair of legs on a Duck is about as ‘useful’ as two heads on a Calf…….
……at best a total nuisance and at worst a disaster!!!!!
Originally Posted by J C
A photocopier can produce any number of copies of an original work – but intelligence IS required to produce the original work, in the first place
Wicknight
……... A photocopier doesn't replicate itself.
A photocopier replicates written information – and DNA replicates genetic information.
…….and the ultimate source of both written and genetic information is intelligence!!!!
Originally Posted by J C
Firstly, could I point out that I used the words “most of the time” and not “always” in relation to the predominance of lethal and semi-lethal mutations
Wicknight
So by most of the time you actually meant "hardly ever"
No!!
By “most of the time” I mean to convey the concept of “most of the time”……:D
Originally Posted by J C
Another SUCCESS……….
………an Evolutionist confirms the veracity of the population bottleneck AKA Noah’s Flood……
Wicknight
Which took place 100,000 years ago ... oh wait, NO IT DIDN'T
Yet another SUCCESS – with an Evolutionist self-correcting himself on the date of Noah’s Flood……
…….Oh Happy Days!!!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
(A four legged Duck) wouldn’t know whether it was coming or going!!!
Son Goku
First evolution was increased adaptation to a specific environment. Later in the thread you demoted it to whether there is any visible external difference to the animals appearance. (To allow you away with that "kinds" crap, e.g. "It still looks like a dog, lol!!")
……but this four legged Duck looked like a Duck, quacked like a Duck and walked like a Duck – because it WAS still a Duck!!!!
Originally Posted by J C
So do you think that a jury would acquit a murder suspect whose only explanation, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is that “muck must have spontaneously ‘arose’ and killed the victim with a point 22 bullet"???
Son Goku
Quit being an eegit and speak sensibly.
The point that I was making is that anybody who would make a claim like the one above, about anything other than the origins of life would be ‘laughed out of court’……..
………..however, Evolutionists will look you straight in the face, and claim that muck DID in fact spontaneously ‘arise’ to produce, for example, a Human murderer complete with a Point 22 Rifle (as in the above scenario)!!!!!:D
So who is actually speaking sensibly here????0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Wicknight
"Yes he can, now hush! No further questions!!!" as an irritated Sunday school teacher might do when faced with questions they don't have the answers to.
I have never come across a Sunday School Teacher without answers to any question that is fundamental to the Christian Faith – an answer is always to be found in the Bible or by the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
However, I have come across many EVOLUTIONISTS who have become very irritated – because of their complete inability to explain how muck could EVER spontaneously evolve into Man!!!!!:D
……..and Kevin Myers also confirms this fact on page 31 of today’s Irish Independent (9/3/07).
He said that “even the most convinced Evolutionists become embarrassed and start mumbling in Eskimo when they try to explain the origin of complex left-handed protein molecules….”
…and Mr Myers’ withering comment on Darwinian Evolution is that "it stretches the bounds of possibility to breaking point to assert that every living thing in this world was created by a series of accidents, the odds against which are to be measured in zillion trillions”.
Evolution is completely invalid – and leading mainstream journalists like Kevin Myers are now beginning to recognise just how implausible the idea of ‘Muck to Man Evolution’ really is!!!!
Originally Posted by JC
……but this four legged Duck looked like a Duck, quacked like a Duck and walked like a Duck – because it WAS still a Duck!!!!
Son Goku
You refute my point by demonstrating the exact quality I criticised you for. An odd method of rebuke.
Anyway, where are the Quantum Gravity papers I asked for?
Four legged Ducks and Quantum Gravity in the one breath – what an amazing thread this is!!!!!:eek:
Most Creationist Physicists have no problem with Quantum Mechanics, which has nothing to do with Evolution.
However, scientific explanations for Gravity are still highly speculative – and Quantum Gravity (and its putative Graviton) is amongst the most speculative.
Quantum Gravity is the ‘El Dorado’ of Modern Physics – and just about as elusive!!:)
The hope is that IF Quantum Gravity could be proven to exist it would provide the long-sought ‘missing link’ between Einstein’s General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics – and thus it could provide a vital component in the so-called ‘Theory of Everything’.
However, Quantum Gravity has NOT been observed in nature – and, as the following article confirms, even if significant lags in photon speeds are ever observed from high energy Gamma Ray bursts, many Astronomers will still validly argue that this could be due to the dynamics of the explosions and not because of the medium of space (with it’s putative Gravitons).
http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/quantumgrav.html
BTW did you know that Gravity itself shows signs of being Intelligently Created???
The force F between two masses m1 and m2, when separated by a distance r, can be written as F = (G m1 m2)/r 2
Where G is the gravitational constant, first measured by Henry Cavendish in 1798.
This equation shows that gravity decreases as the separation distance, r, between two objects increases.
The inverse-square nature of this equation is intriguing. There is no essential reason why gravity should behave in this way. In a chance, evolving universe, some random exponent like r1.97 or r2.3 would seem much more likely. However, precise measurements have shown an exact exponent out to at least 5 decimal places, 2.00000.
We can therefore validly conclude that the Gravity Force WAS Intelligently Created.
……and finally, another ‘nail in the coffin’ of the Big Bang Theory as well as the accuracy of the distances to stars as measured by ‘red shift’.
An international team of astronomers has discovered within the heart of a nearby spiral galaxy a Quasar whose light spectrum indicates that it is billions of light years away – while the galaxy itself is only supposed to be 300 million light years away !!!!
According to the standard Big Bang view of the Universe, Quasars are supposed to be at the very edge of the visible universe where very old Galaxies are being swallowed up into super-luminous Black Holes – yet here we have a quasar ‘next door’ to us in astronomical terms.
You can read all about it here :-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0112quasar.asp
and for those who prefer a non-AIG account you can read it here:-
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp
Wicknight
If God is not enslaved by the passage of time then it is impossible for him to have the emotional states that we do, because our emotional states are dependent on the very fact that we are enslaved to the passage of time.
The reason that God has emotions is because of His 'personhood' – and His emotional state is directly related to the free-willed behaviour of (time-bound) people.
As God is both transcendent and imminent He enjoys the ‘best of both worlds’ so to speak.
Wicknight
Don't get me started on the paradox that is Jesus Christ. The simple fact of the matter is that Jesus existed for 34 years, and while he existed God also existed. At no point was God only Jesus
Jesus Christ is truly God and truly Man – and thus He CONTINUES to exist and to be indivisibly God.
Jn 1:1-4 confirms that Jesus Christ has ALWAYS existed as the second Divine Person and was present at Creation:-
“ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”
Wicknight
Saying God is at point A on a time line is ridiculous, because while being at point A God is also at all other points on the same time line.
The fact that God may be at all points in time and space – DOESN’T mean that He isn’t sad when somebody refuses salvation at a particular point in time and space.
Originally Posted by J C
- just like humans (who are made in His Image and Likeness) can also experience regret
Wicknight
Humans are not gods, and we do move through time. We exist only in the present and as such as time moves we move and our emotional states change.
Emotions are an aspect of PERSONALITY.
Humans therefore share their emotional nature with God, NOT because of Time or Divinity – but because of our shared ‘personhood’ with Him.
I think that you are making the mistake of thinking about God as some kind of impersonal all-powerful force that coldly and clinically runs the Universe. The Bible confirms that God is NOT a 'God of Forces' – He is a personal God with personal emotions that vary depending on what He observes Humans to be doing.
Wicknight
it was the same God, in the same state, at point A when the garden of Eden was created as it was at point B when man fell.
It was the same God – but He responds to OUR varying activities – and thus His emotional state in regard to individual Human Beings changes.
Thus God can move in judgement against unrepentant sinners who deliberately defy Him – or He can move in love to save repentant sinners who believe on Him.:)
Wicknight
the only emotional state God is ever in is the emotional state he is in at the moment of creation, because at that point that emotional state also exists right through the time line to the very end of time, since at that moment God exists right through time to the very end.
God is not limited by anything, including His emotional state at Creation.
He reserves the sovereign right to deliver both judgement and grace on Humanity - and He has exercised this right on multiple occasions already.
Wicknight
God cannot be "moved" by anything as God is aware of everything that has or will ever happen in the one instant of creation.
God is (cognitively) aware of our fallen state - but He is (emotionally) “moved” as a Father to alleviate our plight.
It is God’s personhood that ‘moved’ Jesus Christ to weep at the death of Lazarus – and it is also this emotional aspect to His personality that ‘moved’ Him to die for our sins on Calvary, so that we might be saved from our own folly!!!
Wicknight
Have you never heard of the stories of a photocopy error producing pictures that look awfully like Budda, Princess Diana, The Queen of England, or even the big man Jesus himself?
The photocopier, in these cases, DEGRADED the original information into something that is equivalent to an ‘ink blot diagram’ – and the brains of the viewers then ‘projected’ their own interpretations onto these ‘randomised’ images.
Originally Posted by J C
An extra pair of (non-functional) legs on a Duck is about as ‘useful’ as two heads on a Calf…….
……at best a total nuisance and at worst a disaster!!!!!
Wicknight
Well you couldn't possibly know that JC as you are not qualified in science to make that assessment
I am actually qualified to do so.:D
A four legged Duck or a two headed Calf has never been scientifically observed to successfully use these additional appendages – and such creatures are invariably at a disadvantage to their ‘normal’ peers!!!
Originally Posted by J C
A photocopier can produce any number of copies of an original work – but intelligence IS required to produce the original work, in the first place
Wicknight
So if I place a blank page, or say a page of random numbers produced by a device used to measure wind speed, on a photocopier and make a copy this nonsense that means that this information on the page must be a design? Wind speed is intelligently designed now is it?
I was speaking of photocopying an original work of intelligence (or specified complexity) – such as a written article.
You are talking about copying the work of random processes (or unspecified complexity) – which obeys the ‘law’ of “rubbish in – rubbish out”!!!!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
A photocopier replicates written information – and DNA replicates genetic information
Wicknight
As I said, a photocopier doesn't replicate itself. Did you not understand that the first time I said it?
……..and DNA also doesn’t replicate itself – in the absence of specified genetic information and a whole host of tightly specified biochemical support systems (equivalent to, but much more complicated than the manufacturing process for a photocopier).
……a loose strand of DNA outside of a living cell, will remain a loose strand of DNA - and it WON’T be able to replicate itself.:D0 -
-
J C wrote:However, I have come across many EVOLUTIONISTS who have become very irritated
You seem to be getting a bit irritated now JC, since you are trying to simply avoid answering what you don't understand.J C wrote:Evolution is completely invalid – and leading mainstream journalists like Kevin Myers are now beginning to recognise just how implausible the idea of ‘Muck to Man Evolution’ really is!!!!
Accept my last few posts weren't about evolution. So one can only assume you are rushing back to the topic of evolution because you are completely unequipped to deal the the logical problems your own religion's dogma presents.
Which isn't surprising. In fact that is exactly what I predicted you would do a few posts ago. You don't have an answer. This scares you so you decide to run like a lost child back to your nonsense ranting about evolution.
The reason something has something that it doesn't actually have is rather irrelevant. Would one ask what is the reason that pigs fly? No of course not, because a pig do not fly.J C wrote:The reason that God has emotions is because of His 'personhood'
God doesn't have emotional changes as we do for the reasons I've outlined in my previous posts. Therefore any guessing at the reasons behind these non existent emotional changes is rather pointless JC.
Do you actually understand what you are regurgitating JC, because you might as well say that black is white.J C wrote:– and His emotional state is directly related to the free-willed behaviour of (time-bound) people.
God's emotional state cannot change, it is a logical impossibility, because God exists in the same state in all aspects of time. The state that God is in at the moment of time is the same state he is in at the very end of time. God's state cannot change because there is nothing for it to change into.
The fact that we do change states as time moves is completely unrelated to that fact, since we are neither gods, nor do we exist in all points of time at the same time, as God does. It is as unrelated as proposing that a rock can change move itself because we can move ourselves.
That again is an logical impossibility. God cannot exist at every point in time while at the same time not existing at every point in time, since the former over rules the later. For it to be possible for God's state to change he must first not exist in the future that his present state is moving into, just as we do not exist in the future and the movement into the future alters our present state.J C wrote:As God is both transcendent and imminent He enjoys the ‘best of both worlds’ so to speak.
But God does exist in the future as he exists in the present and the past. As such there is nothing for God to move into, since he is already in the future. His state therefore does not change, since there is nothing for it to change into. He is already in the future, in the same state as he is in now, and was in in the past.
When the Bible has already been proven to contain logical errors JC it make little point in quoting it to support your argument. In fact argument is probably too strong a word, since you have not yet put forward an argument as to why my original post is wrong, probably because you don't know how and your vain searches on the AnswersInGenesis website are bearing no fruit. A better reply would probably to say that it makes no sense to quote Biblical passages to support your own ignorance, since the Bible is clearly as ignorant about the illogical nature of its argument as you are.J C wrote:Jn 1:1-4J C wrote:The fact that God may be at all points in time and space – DOESN’T mean that He isn’t sad when somebody refuses salvation at a particular point in time and space.
Yes actually that is exactly what it means JC. See above.J C wrote:Humans therefore share their emotional nature with God, NOT because of Time or Divinity – but because of our shared ‘personhood’ with Him.
Wow, you really don't understand what you are typing do you JC. Are you like reading this off a pamphlet or something?
Emotions are characterised by a humans passage through time. Our emotions reflect what we are currently experiencing at the moment, what we have experienced in the past, and the anticipation of what we will experience in the future.
There is no human emotion that is not defined with relation to time, and the passage of time. Sadness, happiness, guilt, love, regret etc are all define by the fact that at one point we didn't feel them and then at another point, because something has change, we do feel them.
If a being does not move through time as we do then it is nonsense to state that this being experiences the emotions that we do because of our move through time.
I think you are making the mistake of having no clue what you are talking about, and simple regurgitating passages and phrases that you clear do not understand and have not thought through.J C wrote:I think that you are making the mistake of thinking about God as some kind of impersonal all-powerful force that coldly and clinically runs the Universe.
The Bible is wrong because what it describes is not a logical possiblity.J C wrote:The Bible confirms that God is NOT a 'God of Forces' – He is a personal God with personal emotions that vary depending on what He observes Humans to be doing.
He cannot respond to anything, because he cannot change.J C wrote:It was the same God – but He responds to OUR varying activities
Seriously JC have you actually thought about this properly. If God exists at all points in time at the same time including in the future then how can God not be what he already is in the future.
Say you have three points in time, point A,B and C. When these points are doesn't matter. We also have what from our perspective is the present day, we will assign that to be X, which constantly moves through time from the start of time to the end of time.
God exists at all points from the very get go. As soon as there is time, as soon as X is placed at the very beginning of the time line, God exists at point A,B and C, and all other points while we are at it. For argument sake we will say that A is around the time of creation, B is now, and C is close to the end of time.
At the very start of time, at position A, God is in a certain state, which we will number as state 1. This can be either an emotional state (he's happy say) or a intellectual state (he's thinking about Satan), it doesn't really matter. State 1 is simply the current state of God at the very start of time.
Ok, now remember that God spans all of time. So we have him at all points, A, B and C from the very get go. Therefore while the God at point A is in State 1 it must also mean that all the other instances of God throughout time are also in State 1, since its all the one God, just as if you cover a tennis court with the same PVC covering all points of the court are covered by the same PVC covering.
So we have this situation
|--- Time Position --|---- State of God
|
|
A
|
State 1
|
|
B
|
State 1
|
|
C
|
State 1
|
Now you claim that it is possible for God at some point in time, we will say point B, to become regretful, or sad, or angry over something that has happened at that point in time. But as should be clear from above, that cannot happen.
Suppose for a moment that when our present day counter X actually ends up getting to position B on the time line, and present day is now B, God, based on something that has happened, changes his intellectual or emotional state to a different state, which we will call State 2. So you now find yourself with God in the Time Position B having the state of State 2.
|--- Time Position --|---- State of God
|
|
A
|
State 1
|
|
B
|
State 2
|
|
C
|
State 2
|
But that won't work, because remember that God spans all time at the same time. The state for position B and C already exists. For God to be in State 2 at position B he must also be in State 2 at A and C, because while God exists at position B he is also existing at position A and C. So you end up with a chart as follows
|--- Time Position --|---- State of God
|
|
A
|
State 2
|
|
B
|
State 2
|
|
C
|
State 2
|
Which makes absolutely no sense, because we have just completely ignored the first chart, which is equally valid as this chart. Both charts cannot be correct because they are both describing the same thing yet giving two different answers. As I said, there is only one God. God exists once in the past present and the future. You cannot over write the instance of God that is already present at every point, point A B and C, with a new instance of God. You cannot build up multiple charts like the one above and claim that they are all correct. That is logical nonsense, as bad a 5 year old just deciding that he will make 5+5 equal 342.
As you can see the state of God cannot change as time moves on because he already exists in one state at every position in time.
Again that is logical nonsense JC.J C wrote:God is not limited by anything, including His emotional state at Creation.
God is bound by the fact of his own existence.
If God exists at all points in time at the same time he can no more change what is explained above than one could claim God can make himself completely non-existent and then bring himself back again.
By the very nature of him being able to do that he must still at some level exist, just as by the very nature of him existing across all time means he cannot alter the state that already exists in the future. Nor would I imagine he would wish to.J C wrote:God is (cognitively) aware of our fallen state - but He is (emotionally) “moved” as a Father to alleviate our plight.
As I said -
God cannot be "moved" by anything as God is aware of everything that has or will ever happen in the one instant of creation.
Since nearly all of these occurred in the white space of the page I would be curious to know how one degrades nothingness?J C wrote:The photocopier, in these cases, DEGRADED the original information
One can say very few things with absolute certainty in this life JC. But one of these is that you are certainly not qualified to do so.J C wrote:I am actually qualified to do so.:DJ C wrote:I was speaking of photocopying an original work of intelligence (or specified complexity) – such as a written article.
So that would be a big fat no then. Right then.
Well since we have established that a photocopier can make a copy of something that is intelligently designed, and a photocopier can just as easily make a copy of something that isn't intelligently design, one has to wonder why you keep using this analogy for Intelligent Design. It turns out, rather embarrassingly for you I might add, to be an analogy for quite the opposite of Intelligent Design.
No I'm not. I'm talking about copying something that isn't intelligently designed. I myself photocopied rain fall data for the East coast a few days ago. This was information, but it was certainly not intelligently designed (unless you wish to argue that God is no "designing" the amount of rain that falls to Earth these days).J C wrote:You are talking about copying the work of random processes
Yet bizarrely, and much to my astonishment, the photocopier actually managed to produce a perfect copy of this non-designed information
Quite how there wasn't mass panic in my office at the sight of a photocopier perfectly copying non-designed data I'm not sure.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement