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
-
JC wrote:Scofflaw
It's hard to fault your level of belief.
But my belief in God and in Jesus Christ’s ability to save me is PUNY in comparison with the ENORMOUS faith required to believe that muck will spontaneously evolve into Man!!!!
My faith is only the size of a Mustard Seed!!!
……while Evolutionists possess a faith of gargantuan proportions!!!!
Well, I appreciate the compliment, of course, but I can't gracefully accept it, sadly. While I'm sure that people who do believe that sort of spontaneous turning of muck into man would have to have great faith, that's not what the Theory of Evolution states.
In any case, I'm fairly sure that most of those who think muck turned into man get over the "spontaneously" bit by claiming divine intervention. Apparently, this reduces the amount of faith it takes to accept it...although I can't for the life of me see why. Perhaps you can help?J C wrote:Scofflaw
syn-depositional folding is easily distinguished from post-lithification folding, even with naked eye.
Yes indeed, syn-depositional folding occurred while the rock was fully plastic while post-lithification folding occurred when it was semi-plastic!!!:)
Er, no, once again. Unlithified rock is not "plastic" or "semi-plastic", because those terms describe a solid. Unlithified rock is wet mud or sand. Under flow conditions it is a suspension of solid particles, so it is better described as a 'slurry', or something like that.
Folding in lithified rock can occur under plastic or semi-plastic conditions - and it is also worth remembering that such terms are not separated by some kind of 'phase change', but are rather arbitrary descriptions of a continuous change from non-plastic to fully plastic.J C wrote:Scofflaw
The majority of tectonic folding (ie not syn-depositional, but after the rock has lithified) takes place under high temperatures and/or pressures, but JC's summary is rather misleading.
There was nothing misleading about my comments.:(
My apologies - I had no intention of impugning your honesty, of course. To clarify - the misleading nature of the comments is the result of your misunderstanding of the topic, not dishonesty.J C wrote:I stated that rock must be plastic or semi-plastic in order to fold.
In the case of metamorphic and igneous rock, high temperatures are required for rock to become plastic. Pressures are irrelevant to folding ……unless they generate sufficient heat to transform the rock to a plastic or semi-plastic state!!!
No, pressures are not irrelevant to folding - that's where you're going wrong, and how your comment is misleading. Pressure increases the tensile strength of rock, so that it doesn't shear. If it doesn't shear, it bends.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Tensile strength is not the only relevant factor in considering whether rock will deform rather than break - it's an interplay of brittle strength (tensile strength) and ductile strength (ductility).
Ductility increases with temperature, and tensile strength increases with pressure. Deep enough in the crust, rock is ductile enough to deform relatively easily, and strong enough not to break while doing so.
The key factor is plasticity !!!!
No, I'm afraid not. The key factor is tensile strength. If you cannot shear something, and it is subjected to stress, then it will deform. Plasticity, or ductility, controls how fast and how plastically it will deform - but it will deform, as long as it has sufficient tensile strength not to break.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Given the role of depth and pressure, most deformation takes place deep in the crust. We see folded rocks at the surface because kilometres of erosion have taken place.
Go to any volcano – and you will see folded rocks FORMING at the surface!!!!
Yes, those are syn-depositional folds. Of course, syn-depositional folds in lava are rather different again from syn-depositional folds in sediments.J C wrote:Scofflaw
The point about sedimentary rocks not folding tectonically is particularly misleading. Sedimentary rocks can of course be subjected to conditions that will allow them to fold - but then they are metamorphic rocks. It is correct to say that unaltered sedimentary rocks, if folded, were almost certainly folded shortly after deposition - but a sandstone can undergo folding conditions, and still look like a sandstone.
Once again, what I have said ISN’T misleading.
You actually agree with me that folded Sedimentary rocks, “were almost certainly folded shortly after deposition” – and Metamorphic rocks could either have been originally folded as sedimentary rocks or else they became subsequently folded at the high temperatures during Metamorphosis!!!!
No. You see, because you are under the incorrect impression that rocks only fold at high temperatures, you assume that folded rocks will have undergone high temperatures, and will therefore be obviously metamorphic.
This is at least a logical chain, but your failure to understand the role of tensile strength (and pressure) means that the conclusion is in error.J C wrote:Scofflaw
The 'tensile strength' of rock increases massively with pressure, so all that is required is deep enough burial.
Would Robin, as an engineer, care to comment on Scofflaw’s claim that a bridge’s tensile strength would increase “massively” when pressurised by, for example, the weight of a lorry crossing it.
You could save a lot of reinforcing steel – if Scofflaw is correct!!!!!!
Alas, bridges are of course put under tension when a lorry crosses them.
Instead, you should ask what would happen to the tensile strength of the steel in the bridge if it was subjected to many atmospheres of pressure, or was entombed in several kilometres thickness of solid rock.
You know, as long as you let juvenile jokes substitute for thinking, you'll never learn anything, JC, try as hard as we may.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Ductility increases with temperature….
Scofflaw
Ductility, of course, is a time-dependent measure, so a rock under enough pressure can be folded 'cold' if the folding is slow enough.
Scofflaw, talk to YOURSELF!!!!
Well, I sometimes feel I am, of course.J C wrote:Ductility increases with TEMPERATURE, full stop!!!
…..and it therefore ISN’T time dependent, nor does it allow folding of ‘cold’ rock – which would actually shear and fault, if put under tensile stress!!!
Sorry, I could have put that better. What I should have said is that ductility controls the rate at which a material can deform. As long as tensile strength is great enough to prevent shearing, materials will deform - but ductility controls how rapidly and how plastically it will do so.
At a high enough confining pressure, tensile strength is high enough to allow rocks to deform at reasonably low temperatures.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Codswallop.
You said it, Scofflaw!!!!!
Yes, indeed - I said it to you, if you remember.J C wrote:Scofflaw
For rocks to fold rapidly, they must have very high ductility - which means they were extremely hot. The evidence that the Alps were heated sufficiently to allow incredibly rapid folding?
For igneous or metamorphic rocks to fold AT ALL, they must have high ductility - which means they were extremely hot. The evidence that the Alps were originally heated sufficiently to allow folding, is there in the observed folding!!!!!
Indeed much of the Alps is made up of (originally very hot) IGNEOUS Rocks!!!!:cool:
OK - you think that rocks must be heated to fold, and therefore if the Alps are folded they must have been hot (you're wrong, in case I haven't made that clear enough). That the majority of rocks in the Alps don't show evidence of this heating other than folding fits in where exactly?J C wrote:Scofflaw
Bonkey is talking about tectonic folding. I was talking there about syn-sedimentary folding.
These are two different things, which you either don't understand are different, or are conflating deliberately
I accept that they are two different things.
As I have already said, very high temperatures are required in the case of tectonic folding of metamorphic and igneous rocks while water infusion before sedimentary rock has set is required in the case of syn-sedimentary folding of sedimentary rock.
Quite correct! Just to be sure - do you understand that a sandstone, or mudstone, can be folded, and still look like a sedimentary rock?J C wrote:In fairness I don’t think we disagree about this particular issue, other than the time required for tectonic folding......and a visit to any active volcano will settle this question.....in favour of RAPID folding!!!!:eek:
Oh dear. No, no, no. The folding in lavas is not tectonic folding - it is syn-sedimentary folding. Lava is not merely "rock in a plastic state", it is liquid rock.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Most of those "folded sedimentary rocks" are folded metamorphic rocks that still look like sedimentary rocks.
I agree that folding in Metamorphic rock could be due to either syn-folding or tectonic folding while sedimentary rock folding can only be due to syn-folding.
Hmm. Hmm. Slippery. Let's be sure - what do you understand by "sedimentary rock" there?
If you mean a sedimentary rock which has not been altered by any post-lithification process except diagenesis, then we are on the same page.
I'm worried, though, that what you really mean is that when you see a folded sandstone, the folding must have been syn-sedimentary - which is not the case.J C wrote:Originally posted by J C
Yes indeed, Creationism is still the dominant viewpoint amongst orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Scofflaw
Again, for a given definition of "orthodox" - I assume we're using the one that means "those who believe in the same 'literal' interpretation of their Holy Books that I do". This remains a minority.
No, I was referring to practically ALL of the Mainstream Christian Churches as well the vast majority of Jews and Muslims.
The Apostles and Nicene Creeds proclaim God as maker/Creator and they 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 Churches Creationist Churches also.
Oh, yes - the Nicene Creed claim. Well, suit yourself.
For my money, if the Pope accepts evolution, then claiming that the formula of the Nicene Creed means Catholics are Creationists by your lights is pure moonshine.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Throughout history, of course, the vast majority of people have believed all sorts of ridiculous and pernicious nonsense.
It is indeed, amazing what the fallen mind of Man can dream up.
Were you thinking perhaps of Evolution as part of the “ridiculous and pernicious nonsense” which people have believed???!!!:D
Funnily enough, I wasn't! I might have been thinking of the Second Coming, which no generation of Christians has failed to proclaim as due shortly. Or I might have been thinking of something else entirely.J C wrote:Scofflaw
I also note you're not quite so quick to claim the intellectual weight of all primitive religions in addition, but I suppose that was an oversight.
The people most entitled to “claim the intellectual weight of all primitive religions” are actually the Evolutionists!!!:)
The ‘primitive religions’ largely believed that the ‘forces of nature’ were Gods – and they were thus a fore-runner of Evolutionism, which also accords ‘God-like’ qualities to matter by believing that ‘muck can spontaneously morph into Man’!!!!:D
Sadly, that's below even your usual standards. Any particular reason for denying those poor primitive theists the reflected glory of your intellectual achievements?J C wrote:Scofflaw
Yes. It is often the case that the story one tells children are actually completely untrue.
Yes indeed, children DO enjoy fairytales of both the Fairy and Evolutionary varieties!!!!:D
One of the best stories is the one about the amphibian Frog that turned into a Prince after about 200 million years!!!!!!!:D
Gosh. I must say I don't remember that one. That'd be a very long kiss.J C wrote:Referenced by Scofflaw
Talkorigins comment on the apparent presence of Human and Dinosaur footprints on the same limestone bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas:-
“This site clearly demonstrated that dinosaurs were capable of making elongated, even "man-like" impressions.”
I see, when confronted with incontrovertible forensic evidence that Man lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs, the Evolutionists decide that the ‘Man like’ footprints were made by a Dinosaur with Human feet!!!!
That's the thing, you see. The evidence isn't "incontrovertible" at all. It's a series of very blurry track-marks, one or two of which seem to resemble human footprints. Those one or two are taken from the series and a Creationist explanation is hung on them, while the rest of the tracks are ignored.
Still, I'm aware that looking at the whole picture is neither the forte, nor indeed the aim, of Creationists.J C wrote:…….I wonder would an Evolutionist acquit an accused person whose footprints were found at the scene of a crime because they COULD have been made by a DINOSAUR with ‘Man-like’ footprints???????:D
Since you made that up yourself, I doubt even the most lunatic of people would try it.J C wrote:Scofflaw
They are incredibly slow processes - the Rift Valley, for example, widens at about a centimetre a year.
Yes, many such processes are CURRENTLY very slow, due to relative tectonic inactivity.
However, mountain building CAN be very rapid – for example a new 300 metre ‘replacement’ mountain has ‘grown’ out of the sea to replace Krakatoa, which blew up in 1883.
Called Anak Krakatau, this island has grown in height at an average rate of 13 centimetres PER WEEK since the 1950s – or 7.5 METRES per year!!!!
Reports in 2005 indicate that activity at Anak Krakatau is increasing, with fresh lava flows adding to the island's area.:cool:
Yes. Those are what we call "volcanoes". If you'd like to know more about them, and how they are different from other mountains like, say, the Alps, you can ask any small boy, who will no doubt be able to explain it.J C wrote:Scofflaw
I take it you've run out of ocean-stored lion, then?
It was very nice, while it lasted!!!!!!:)
……but I do prefer FRESH Dinosaur whenever the Palaeontologists ‘get lucky’ and find a partially fossilised specimen to bring home!!!!:D
I am constantly amazed by what you are able to swallow. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear that it tastes like chicken.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Originally Posted by J C
I sometimes think that Evolutionists wouldn't accept that Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed EVEN if they were to be attacked by a Dinosaur on a field trip!!!!!
Scofflaw
It's not something that we get insurance for, anyway. Nor do we take anti-dragon tablets, or Sasquatch repellant.
There are intriguing and well founded accounts of sightings of Dinosaur-like creatures in remote swamps, in areas such Zaire, for example.
We also have organisms alive today whose fossils have been found alongside Dinosaur fossils – and were dated at over 150 million years as a result by Evolutionists!!!!:-.
Some of these creatures were considered extinct contemporaries of Dinosaurs by Evolutionists – until they were discovered to be alive and well:-
These creatures are the so-called ‘living fossils’ – and they include the Coelacanth Fish, that was supposedly extinct for over 100 million years and was found ‘alive and well’ and swimming happily off the coast of Africa in 1938.
Equally, the Wollemi Pine was discovered to be living in a remote canyon in Australia in 1994 - and it was nicknamed the ‘dinosaur tree’ as it had previously been only known from fossils ‘dated’ at around 150 million years old.
The Crocodile is believed by Evolutionists to have remained COMPLETELY UNCHANGED for over 150 million years.
Other living fossils include the Salamander, Turtles – and practically every creature living today!!!!
More information on this amazing phenomenon can be found here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4416livingfossil_tree12-25-2000.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/livingfossil.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/salamanders.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/fossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0418turtles.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/livingfossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/fossil.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/fossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/gladiator.asp
…….and National Geographic has even reported a Lamprey that “hasn’t changed much in 360 million years”:-
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061025-lampreys.html
Some thoughts from the book “How Evolution Flunked the Science Test”:-
Recently I talked to a man with a fantastic amount of faith. Not one shade of doubt crept into his animated description of man's origin and destiny. He was an evolutionist I met on an airplane. With incredible confidence he bridged the eons of prehistoric time to explain the existence of modern plant and animal life. His detailed description of human ascent from a tiny, one-celled monad was so vivid and convincing that one could almost believe he had seen the microscopic amoeba turn into a man.
What is this evolution doctrine, which inspires so much faith in its disciples? How has it turned great scientists into dogmatic opponents of any other viewpoint? Many evolutionary scientists have united their professional influence to forbid any classroom instruction contrary to their own views. Does the theory of evolution merit this kind of fanatical support, which would silence all opposing ideas? ..............
..... In February of 1977, nearly 200 members of the nation's academic community sent letters to school boards across the United States, urging that no alternate ideas on origins be permitted in classrooms.
This indicates that the evolutionists are feeling the threat of a rising revolt against the stereotyped, contradictory versions of their theory. Many students are looking for answers to their questions about the origin and purpose of life. For the first time, the stale traditions of evolution are having to go on the defensive………...
…….How can we explain the naive insistence of evolutionists to believe something so extremely out of character for their scientific background? ...............
.......The obvious explanation would seem to be rooted in the desperation of such evolutionists to retain their reputation as the sole dispensers of dogmatic truth. To acknowledge a superior wisdom has been too long cultivated by the evolutionist community. They have repeated their assumptions for so long in support of their theories that they have started accepting them as facts.
The following questions are particularly pertinent:-
1. Does the ‘Theory of Evolution’ merit the silencing of all opposing ideas?
2. How can we harmonize the normally broad-minded tolerance of the educated, with the attempts by some Evolutionary Scientists to not allow opposing points of view?
Indeed, it is amazing that ‘liberal’ Evolutionists are amongst the people you would expect to jump first to the defence of any point of view that was forcibly silenced, yet many (otherwise ‘liberal’) Evolutionists actively support the banning, by law if necessary, of the Creationist viewpoint.:)
Isn’t it amazing that Divine Creation is the ONLY issue upon which many so-called ‘liberal thinkers’ are now ILLIBERAL??!!!:D
……and BTW Creation Scientists FULLY SUPPORT the Academic Freedom of Evolutionists to pursue their studies into Evolution and to promote its virtues while reserving the right to scientifically challenge their conclusions.
Scofflaw
I'm fairly sure that most of those who think muck turned into man get over the "spontaneously" bit by claiming divine intervention
As most of the ‘Muck to Man Evolutionists’ are Atheists, I don’t know how they get over the “spontaneously” bit, except by having an awe-inspiring (and unfounded) faith in the ‘forces of nature’!!!!:eek:
Scofflaw
Folding in lithified rock can occur under plastic or semi-plastic conditions
That is PRECISELY my point!!!
……and rocks become plastic under the enormous heat of tectonic processes and pressures!!!
Scofflaw
No, pressures are not irrelevant to folding - that's where you're going wrong, and how your comment is misleading. Pressure increases the tensile strength of rock, so that it doesn't shear. If it doesn't shear, it bends.
Pressures can increase the plasticity of rock, but this is as a result of the great heat generated by the energy produced by such pressures.
Scofflaw
If you cannot shear something, and it is subjected to stress, then it will deform.
Cold rock will deform before it reaches it’s shearing point……..
…….but gross deformations, like pronounced rock folding, requires plastic conditions in the rock.
Scofflaw
The folding in lavas is not tectonic folding - it is syn-sedimentary folding.
The folding in lavas is syn-igneous folding!!!
Scofflaw
For my money, if the Pope accepts evolution, then claiming that the formula of the Nicene Creed means Catholics are Creationists by your lights is pure moonshine.
……but the PRESENT Pope has distanced himself considerably from Evolution.
He has also reinforced the authority of the Nicene Creed to the point of asking that the Creed start as a personal profession of faith with the word “I believe in God the Father Maker of heaven and earth, etc" rather than the word “We” ….. which came in post-Vatican II.
The present Pope has also endorsed Intelligent Design for it’s scientific and theological validity.
…so Creationist Roman Catholics are fully endorsed in their belief by both their Creeds and their Pope!!!
…and I know of many excellent Creation Scientists who ARE Roman Catholics!!
Scofflaw
Any particular reason for denying those poor primitive theists the reflected glory of your intellectual achievements?
They probably wouldn’t accept such a gift.
……and they obviously enjoy the reflected glory of the Evolutionists ‘intellectual achievements’.:D
Originally Posted by J C
when confronted with incontrovertible forensic evidence that Man lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs, the Evolutionists decide that the ‘Man like’ footprints were made by a Dinosaur with Human feet
Scofflaw
It's a series of very blurry track-marks, one or two of which seem to resemble human footprints.
I see, when confronted with incontrovertible forensic evidence that Man lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs, Scofflaw decides that the ‘Man like’ footprints were made by a Dinosaur with feet “which seem to resemble human footprints.”
Is that denial or what???
Originally Posted by J C
…….I wonder would an Evolutionist acquit an accused person whose footprints were found at the scene of a crime because they COULD have been made by a DINOSAUR with ‘Man-like’ footprints?
Scofflaw
I doubt even the most lunatic of people would try it.
……but such a ‘denial of the obvious’ IS made by Evolutionists in relation to the Human and Dinosaur footprints found in the Dinosaur State Park!!!:D
You can read all about it here
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm
Scofflaw
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear that it (Dinosaur meat) tastes like chicken.
…..the mammal Dinosaurs probably tasted like Beef!!!:D
Robin
Wald was talking about "spontaneous generation of a living organism" being impossible, not the gradual evolution of self-replicating molecules being impossible.
The ‘gradual evolution of self-replicating molecules’ eventually leading to the ‘evolution of Man’ is a similar hypothesis to the "spontaneous generation of a living organism" (with time added).
Could I gently point out that something that is inherently impossible (Spontaneous Generation) DOESN’T become 'magically' possible with the addition of time!!!!:D
Originally Posted by JC
Please tell me what logic drives you to accept Abiogenesis and Macro-Evolution – and what evidence do you have for their scientific validity?
Robin
I kept on provided this until I noticed that you simply ignored anything and everything that I wrote
I have always had a deep interest in your writings, Robin.
Could your obvious reluctance to tell us what evidence you have for the scientific validity of Abiogenesis and Evolution, have anything to do with the fact that NO evidence exists, that isn’t better explained by Direct Creation???!!
BTW Robin, there probably are many Evolutionists observing this thread who would like to renew their faith in Evolution by reading some rousing words of encouragement from you !!!:)
.....otherwise you risk them losing their faith ......and becoming Creationists!!!!:D:)0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Originally Posted by JC
Could I gently point out that something that is inherently impossible (Spontaneous Generation) DOESN’T become 'magically' possible with the addition of time!!!!Scofflaw wrote:Indeed. I think you'll find most people prefer "God" as the secret ingredient.
....do the Atheists also (secretly) prefer God as the 'secret ingredient' as well??
Posted by mossieh
Scofflaw, I'd just like to say that your posts on this thread have been superb, It's great to see someone who has both the knowledge and the eloquence to express the scientific viewpoint reasonably and in terms understandable to a layman such as myself. Fair play.
Indeed, could I also add my compliments to you Scofflaw.
I have found the Evolutionists on this thread to be both intelligent and thoughful........
.......and my only question is why such well educated and clearly very able scientists continue to hold to a defunct idea like Macro-Evolution??
0 -
J C wrote:have anything to do with the fact that NO evidence exists, that isn’t better explained by Direct Creation???!!
1 - Sexual reproduction
2 - The Menopause
3 - The mammal immune system
4 - The human jaw
5 - The human eye
I could go on ... and on ... and on ....
We have been over this JC. Life on Earth is extremely badly designed for the vast majority of the tasks it attempts. It works on the "just enough" principle, where most biological systems do just enough to get by, often suffering from huge inefficiency and errors.
Yet you claim that these were not only designed systems, but designed by the most perfect intelligence that could exist :rolleyes:
If life was intelligently designed, particularly by a god-like intelligence, then I seriously doubt he/she/it would have done such a piss poor job as we find.
The only rational explanation is that none of this was designed by any intelligence. The idea that some intelligence would have the ability to alter matter to produce life yet screw up the design of so much of what we see around us is simply ridiculous
Of course I understand you will never accept this because for you logic and reason don't come into this. You have to believe this is intelligently designed for religious reason. You will simply argue some nonsense that all life is perfect because all life does what it does, which is such a stupid argument I wonder could I be bothered going over it again with you.
No biologist has ever looked at a deer having a period or human eyeballs and gone "Wow, look at that, there is no way that could have ever been done any better, what a perfect design, that must have been designed by something"
Nonsense :rolleyes:0 -
J C wrote:Originally Posted by JC
Could I gently point out that something that is inherently impossible (Spontaneous Generation) DOESN’T become 'magically' possible with the addition of time!!!!
....do the Atheists also (secretly) prefer God as the 'secret ingredient' as well??
Since we don't believe that "spontaneous generation" is what happened, the question doesn't really arise.J C wrote:Posted by mossieh
Scofflaw, I'd just like to say that your posts on this thread have been superb, It's great to see someone who has both the knowledge and the eloquence to express the scientific viewpoint reasonably and in terms understandable to a layman such as myself. Fair play.
Indeed, could I also add my compliments to you Scofflaw.
I have found the Evolutionists on this thread to be both intelligent and thoughful........
.......and my only question is why such well educated and clearly very able scientists continue to hold to a defunct idea like Macro-Evolution??
Mostly because we actually understand it. Rejectionists like yourself almost invariably don't, which is why you have to settle for flaws of your own devising. Or, of course, the approach outlined here.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Wicknight & Scofflaw said:
You seem to have forgotten my avowed aims in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicknight
Wolfsbane you, just like JC, are a great one for responding to direct questions with links to Creationists websites.
Can you actually explain what both these articles are saying?
I second that. After all, you say you're convinced by the scientific evidence for Creation - whereas we aren't.
Presumably the articles you point to are convincing for you, otherwise why point us to them? If you don't understand them, how do you know they're relevant to the discussion at all?
As I'm not a qualified scientist, I cannot give an informed assessment of the quality of either your or any creationist scientific case.
I can follow the general argument in some specifics.
I can point out what seem to me to be serious common sense errors with the evolutionary scenario (abiogenesis, for instance).
But more importantly, and this is my immediate goal in this thread, I can point out to the unwary that the evolutionary case is hotly disputed by scientists just as qualified as those who promote evolution.
This immediate goal serves my ultimate purpose on this thread: to remove evolution as a stumbling block to belief in God and His gospel to man. I'm not at all interested in changing scientific understanding just for the sake of it. That would be a secular teacher's calling.
Finally, if one comes to faith and continues in it despite one's belief in evolution, fine. God will remove all nonsense from our heads when we go to be with Him. But if evolution poses a problem to our absolute trust in God and His word, we need to wrestle with the issue till we see that it is man who is fallible and God who is not. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Then you have admitted your opposition to evolution is not based on its evidential standing, but on your personal beliefs. In which case you should simply say "I think evolution is wrong for personal reasons, as I am of a minority of Christians who believe it is incompatible with the Christian God". Most biologists are Christians so it isn't a stumbling block and it is rarely, if ever, the cause of personal atheism.wolfsbane wrote:But more importantly, and this is my immediate goal in this thread, I can point out to the unwary that the evolutionary case is hotly disputed by scientists just as qualified as those who promote evolution.
This immediate goal serves my ultimate purpose on this thread: to remove evolution as a stumbling block to belief in God and His gospel to man. I'm not at all interested in changing scientific understanding just for the sake of it. That would be a secular teacher's calling.
Finally, if one comes to faith and continues in it despite one's belief in evolution, fine. God will remove all nonsense from our heads when we go to be with Him. But if evolution poses a problem to our absolute trust in God and His word, we need to wrestle with the issue till we see that it is man who is fallible and God who is not.
As we have said before, dispute by the minority is not a case and calling something nonsense because of your personal common sense is in itself complete nonsense, as it'd leave you without the computer you have in front of you. Every bit of whose circuitry does not function due to common sense.
If you wish to criticise evolution, explain how it gave us modern drugs. Explain all its successes. Go evangelise in general, instead of talking nonsense about something you can't disprove without using those lame jokes or conspiracy theories and apocalyptic imagery.
Compare:
Side 1: 150+ years of out in the field study, with collaboration from thousands of individuals of different faiths. With everybody coming to the same conclusion.
Side 2:People who have done no work, except give a few canonical "The woodpecker would be dead if evolution was true" type examples. When confronted with the fact that they have sat on their ass, spit out "man has fallen" in response to those 150+ years of work instead of formulating an arguement or doing some work, when they could very easily replace the whole charade with "I don't like evolution for personal reasons".0 -
-
-
-
-
Originally Posted by J C
NO evidence exists (for Evolution), that isn’t better explained by Direct Creation???!!
Wicknight
1 - Sexual reproduction
2 - The Menopause
3 - The mammal immune system
4 - The human jaw
5 - The human eye
I could go on ... and on ... and on ....
We have been over this JC. Life on Earth is extremely badly designed for the vast majority of the tasks it attempts. It works on the "just enough" principle, where most biological systems do just enough to get by, often suffering from huge inefficiency and errors.
Yet you claim that these were not only designed systems, but designed by the most perfect intelligence that could exist.
So, once again, rather than providing ANY evidence FOR Materialistic Evolution, you decide to argue that the above phenomena provide evidence against a (perfect) Creation!!!!
Firstly, could I point out that Creationists DON’T expect current life-forms to be perfect, due to the Fall and the entry of sin and death into the World, bringing with them imperfection and disease!!!.
However, we DO expect living creatures to show evidence of the once perfect state of their ancestors and possible also evidence of Divine Providence in action.
Your above examples DO show that these systems were one perfect and indeed today they are ALMOST perfect in healthy creatures.
The Amino Acid sequence for just one critical protein in any of the above anatomical features would require all of the matter and time in the Universe to produce it spontaneously – and so NONE of these features could have logically arisen without a massive input of purposeful intelligence.:D
BTW the ‘just enough’ principle IS evidence of good efficient design, especially where many competing design limitations require a balance to be struck between different aspects of the structure being produced.
Equally, BTW, the Menopause is part of God’s Divine Providence in action, by removing the burden of child-bearing and child-rearing from older women.
It is one of God’s mercies on a fallen Humanity who must experience death in themselves and in their loved ones, that most children reach adulthood before their mothers die because of the Menopause.
Wicknight
The only rational explanation is that none of this was designed by any intelligence.
…..but the Creationist argument isn’t confined to the perfection of the design in living things, even though living systems are invariably 99.99999% perfect - otherwise they die.
The most powerful argument in favour of Creation is the fact that Materialistic processes show absolutely NO potential to produce the massive amounts of tightly specified complex systems observed in nature.
…….and the Fall accounts for the few imperfections that we do observe, and which eventually cause all creatures to die in compliance with God’s judgement on Adam and Eve's Fall.
Equally, could I point out that you still haven’t provided ANY evidence IN FAVOUR of Evolution itself, which was what I asked you to provide, in the first place!!!
Your argument is similar to stating that a particular car wasn’t Intelligently Designed because you have discovered some scratch marks on the bumper and it doesn’t have air conditioning!!!
Could I suggest that the logical conclusion from such evidence ISN’T that the car was spontaneously generated – but that there were some minor imperfections in the driving skills of the owner and the designer of the vehicle decided that a high output heater was more important than ‘aircon’ in that particular market!!!!
Originally Posted by J C
…..my only question is why such well educated and clearly very able scientists continue to hold to a defunct idea like Macro-Evolution?
Scofflaw
Mostly because we actually understand it. Rejectionists like yourself almost invariably don't…..
Please share your ‘understanding’ with us then………
…….you never know, some of it might 'rub off' on us!!!!
....but perhaps, even more importantly from your perspective, there are many Evolutionists observing this thread whose faith in Evolution has been seriously damaged by all of the evidence that has emerged over the past 280 pages ……….
………………and if you continue to not provide any substantive evidence for Evolution, you risk them losing their faith altogether......and becoming Creationists!!!!:eek: 0 -
-
-
J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
…..my only question is why such well educated and clearly very able scientists continue to hold to a defunct idea like Macro-Evolution?
Scofflaw
Mostly because we actually understand it. Rejectionists like yourself almost invariably don't…..
Please share your ‘understanding’ with us then………
…….you never know, some of it might 'rub off' on us!!!!
All the evidence suggests that it won't, because in 280 pages of providing you with it, none of it has. You are no nearer to understanding the theory now than you were 18 months ago - yet, remarkably, many others are, and have posted to say so.
You are, as we have said before, JC, a very special person.J C wrote:....but perhaps, even more importantly from your perspective, there are many Evolutionists observing this thread whose faith in Evolution has been seriously damaged by all of the evidence that has emerged over the past 280 pages ……….
I can only assume they are PMing you to share these doubts, since not a single soul has come forward to say such a thing - whereas the reverse we have demonstrably seen several times.J C wrote:………………and if you continue to not provide any substantive evidence for Evolution, you risk them losing their faith altogether......and becoming Creationists!!!!:eek:
What can I say? I am impressed by your ability to type while looking in the mirror. I'd be even more impressed if you ever said anything worth saying.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:So, once again, rather than providing ANY evidence FOR Materialistic Evolution, you decide to argue that the above phenomena provide evidence against a (perfect) Creation!!!!
JC we have provided 200+ pages of evidence for "materialistic evolution". You have ignored it and instead claimed that the only rational explanation for life is that it was intelligently designed, despite not providing any model for this (Intelligently designed by whom and what did they do?)
So, in the interests of rational argument, lets put evolution aside for the minute and have a look at Intelligent Design, which you claim is the only rational explanation for life on Earth
I am simply pointing out that that is simply not a rational conclusion, given the millions of examples found in life where the "design" of a system is incredible bad, to say that ID is the most rational explanation for life.
If you don't accept Darwinian evolution as a process that produced this system 280 pages of evidence is probably not going to change your mind now. But then intelligent design is no less a logical conclusion (even ignoring the fact that you have no direct evidence that any intelligence ever designed anything).
ID makes no sense since, put simply, these systems don't work very well. They don't show evidence in the way they work, of being designed. A 1st year engineering student could come up with better ways for most of them to work. Argument that they were build by intelligences capable of indirectly altering and arranging matter yet couldn't design a jaw or eye ball properly is nonsense :rolleyes:J C wrote:Firstly, could I point out that Creationists DON’T expect current life-forms to be perfect, due to the Fall and the entry of sin and death into the World, bringing with them imperfection and disease!!!.
What they "expect" is supposed to be irrelevant JC. Remember, this is supposed to be science, not religion.
Creationists claim most often that Intelligent Design is not a religious idea.
Yet you are basically saying that for Intelligent Design to "fit" current evidence you need to work in the very religious idea of The Fall significantly altering the biological make up of every life form on Earth.
Ignoring the fact that the Fall is only supposed to have effected humans and snakes (according to the Bible) you have no evidence or theory explaining what actually happened during the Fall, or even that it took place at all
How can you claim that Intelligent Design is a rational explanation for the life we see around us when you also claim that it is only a rational explanation if one assumes that The Fall took place and effected every animal in the world.
You are basically claiming that life was intelligently designed by God, but due to the Fall life now looks like it wasn't intelligently designed by God. Since you have no evidence any of this actually happened the only logical conclusion is that because life does not look like it was intelligently design it was never intelligently designed.J C wrote:Your above examples DO show that these systems were one perfect and indeed today they are ALMOST perfect in healthy creatures.
Firstly they are not ALMOST perfect, they are far far from that. As I said a 1st year biology or engineering student could probably come up with a better system given his lunch break and a napkin. Life on Earth doesn't look intelligently designed, unless said intelligence was a moron, and the idea that this moron could indirectly manipulate matter at an atomic level yet screw up so much of the "design" is not a rational conclusion.
A "The Fall" you say, the Fall that is supposed to alter all life on Earth despite the fact that this is never claimed in the Bible
Well, what evidence do you have that these systems were once perfect and that some event altered them? Scientific evidence I mean. On what grounds to you say that the mass altering of all biological life on Earth by a supernatural deity about 6,000 years ago is a serious scientific theory? What evidence do you have that this took place? Do you have fossils of any of these "perfect" animals. What did a perfect human look life, how did his internal systems work
Interesting point. Not though as you might have meant it.J C wrote:The Amino Acid sequence for just one critical protein in any of the above anatomical features would require all of the matter and time in the Universe to produce it spontaneously
Darwinian evolution has never theorized that this would have been produced spontaneously, so we can leave that for the side for the moment since this isn't a flaw in evolution just your understanding of it.
On the other hand it does raise an interesting issue of what would have actually happened if Intelligent Design is to be taken seriously. ID does after all claim that an amino acid did actually appear with no natural process behind it. How would this happen. What is the capability of the intelligence behind this production. One must assume they have the ability to alter matter
No actually, its evidence of "just enough" design, which as any engineer will tell you is neither good nor efficient design.J C wrote:BTW the ‘just enough’ principle IS evidence of good efficient design
And why did God, in his infinite wisdom, decide to design the menopause as being a system that has quite damaging effect on the woman's body as they go through it?J C wrote:Equally, BTW, the Menopause is part of God’s Divine Providence in action, by removing the burden of child-bearing and child-rearing from older women.
The idea that the menopause system as found in humans, and other Great Apes (why did God give Great Apes the menopause?), was designed by an intelligence is simply ridiculous. It is a terrible system attempting to achieve something that should be relatively simple and straight forward to do. And you think God designed this?
What is on the other hand a rational and logical explanation is that the menopause is a relatively new system produced by natural evolution Suddenly everything about it make sense with in a Darwinian frameworkJ C wrote:It is one of God’s mercies on a fallen Humanity who must experience death in themselves and in their loved ones, that most children reach adulthood before their mothers die because of the Menopause.
So why give it to the not fallen, and not human, Gorillas?
LOL ... you have a pretty wacky idea of what is perfect JCJ C wrote:…..but the Creationist argument isn’t confined to the perfection of the design in living things, even though living systems are invariably 99.99999% perfect - otherwise they die.
If I want to drive from my house to the airport I can take the direct route, or I can take a roundabout way. The direct route is "prefect" in that there is no better way of getting to the airport in my car. The roundabout way is not perfect. In fact it is very very far from perfect. Some roundabout routes might be close to perfect, some might be far far from it. But with them I still end up in the airport.
99.999999% of biological systems on Earth use some form of the roundabout way to get something done. The only logical explanation for this that they are the product of a natural system that put simply didn't know any better. You can claim if you like that this natural system isn't evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't an intelligently designed system.
The idea that an intelligence would pick a less than perfect solution to a simple problem is put simply not a rational conclusion. And the only reason someone would come to an irrational conclusion over something like this is for religious reasons, not scientific ones.J C wrote:The most powerful argument in favour of Creation is the fact that Materialistic processes show absolutely NO potential to produce the massive amounts of tightly specified complex systems observed in nature.
No. Even if you show that natural evolution has no potential to produce modern life (which has been shown, but I know you don't accept that), that is not a rational reason to accept intelligent design.
Intelligent design does not fit the evidence. Evolution is irrelevant to this fact. Life simply does not look intelligently designed, it is not a rational explanation for life.J C wrote:…….and the Fall accounts for the few imperfections that we do observe, and which eventually cause all creatures to die in compliance with God’s judgement on Adam and Eve's Fall.
The Fall is not a scientific theory, it is religious dogma. I would also point incorrect religious dogma since the fall concerns no other animals apart from humans and snakes and therefore even if one accepts the Fall on religious grounds it still does not explain 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of biological lifeforms on EarthJ C wrote:Equally, could I point out that you still haven’t provided ANY evidence IN FAVOUR of Evolution itself, which was what I asked you to provide, in the first place!!!
Well firstly JC you may notice that for the last 280 pages myself and others have done pretty much nothing except present you with evidence for darwinian evolution. You simply choose to ignore it.
But as I explained above, that is a bit of a side issue. Intelligent Design is a completely independent theory from evolution. What can and cannot be shown with relation to evolution is irrelevant for ID.
ID is stands and falls on its own. And I'm sorry to tell you this JC, but it falls. It doesn't match the evidence, life on Earth simply does not look intelligently designed.
You can argue that it doesn't look like the product of evolution either if you life. But that doesn't change the fact that intelligent design does not work as an explanation for life.
You are going to have to come up with a better "alternative" theory0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Well, if he's faxed off his signed statement of belief, then I suppose, yes, he can call himself a Ham-approved "creation scientist". I wonder if Ham has had the foresight to trademark this? Perhaps he could start up his own diploma mill producing thousands of "Creation Scientists(tm)" and thereby do his small bit to help stamp out the abominable practice of having fake "creation scientists" running around.Scofflaw wrote:So perhaps JC really is a "Creation Scientist" then?
Is anybody on for creating a church for aggressive secularists (a signed Statement of Faith necessary!) but whose members are called "christians"? Sounds like a winner to me 0 -
-
-
J C wrote:Equally, BTW, the Menopause is part of God’s Divine Providence in action, by removing the burden of child-bearing and child-rearing from older women.
It is one of God’s mercies on a fallen Humanity who must experience death in themselves and in their loved ones, that most children reach adulthood before their mothers die because of the Menopause.
LOL. I'm certain that's not in the Bible. Is your mother proud of you? What does she think of your speculation on the true intentions of God when he "invented" the menopause?? 0 -
2Scoops wrote:LOL. I'm certain that's not in the Bible. Is your mother proud of you? What does she think of your speculation on the true intentions of God when he "invented" the menopause??
Strangely enough for a seemingly fundamentalist Christian, JC doesn't seem too concerned with what is or is not in the Bible. Ask him about tectonic activity during the Flood0 -
-
bonkey & Scofflaw said:
I agree with you both on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by bonkey
Being "a scientist" does not automatically qualify one to comment with authority on all areas of science - a point which is typically overlooked.
Being "a scientist" does not automatically mean that one's arguments are scientific in nature.
"Hotly disputed" does not in any way imply "scientifically disputed".
In summary - "disputed by scientists" is not the same as "scientifically disputed". A debate between scientists who are Christian and scientists who are Muslim about the salvational merits of their respective religions is not a scientific debate, even if all participants are scientists. What we disagree on, apparently, is the fact that scientists who are creationists are scientifically disputing, in their relevant fields, the scientific claims of evolutionism.
And it seems to provoke the fingers-in-ears-with-accompanying-mantra from many of you. But the truth will out, so we presevere. 0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement