The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Also on the brochure by the RR folks, reason 10 states that the Big Bang is a fact, yet I get the impression by some on this thread that it is just a theory.

Can we clear these two things up?

Oh sweet hairy Moses, not this again!!

Something in science is just a theory in the same way that Kelly Brooke is just a woman and a hot chocolate Sunday is just a collection of sugar.

"Theory" is the highest thing in science. Everything else, including "facts" comes below theory. If you don't have theory you don't have nothing (one of the reasons why people don't like Creationists they have no theories of their own they only rag on other peoples theories)

Theory is science, science is theory.

A theory of course being a scientific model of a natural event or occurrence.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote:

I think deep down inside you actually really respect Ham.

Sadly, I don't. I do find what he has to say very funny, though, because he comes out with things that would have people in Ireland referring him to a psychiatric unit, but in America, they whip out their credit cards instead. I always wondered if I could do Ham's job myself if I had his ethical flexibility and his consummately adaptable approach to factual honesty, but I don't, so I'm stuck writing software instead

BrianCalgary wrote:

I am curious about the 6,000 yaer age. Anything I have read has the Earth about 12-14,000 yaers. Where did the 6,000 number come from.

The 6,000 years figure comes from the Irish Bishop Ussher, who produced the figure in the mid-17th by triangulating from the characters and events mentioned in the old testament and arrived at a date of October 23, 4004 BC, at nine in the morning. Ken documents how this figure was arrived at here and you can buy a copy of Ussher's gushings here. For $350, lest anybody think that things come cheap chez Ham.

I believe the 12,000 year figure is accepted only by very few creationists, with the 6,000 year one much more commonly believed (see the ubiquitous Ham who's a 6,000 yearer!). I believe the 12,000 year figure arose from an observation of one tree-ring which suggested that the tree was alive 12,000 years ago. The 12k date is also related to the optimum period for carbon-dating too, but many creationists reject this date (and go with the 6k) because they reject the findings of modern physics (which gives us nuclear power, computers and much else), as they reject the findings of modern biology.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Also on the brochure by the RR folks, reason 10 states that the Big Bang is a fact, yet I get the impression by some on this thread that it is just a theory. Can we clear these two things up?

In science, a "fact", roughly speaking, an observation which is sufficiently well documented and well-observed that it's considered accurate, subject to later revision if new evidence emerges. A "theory" is, roughly, a framework of reason and logic which describes and supports a series of observations and makes falsifiable (testable) predictions which can be used to work out if the theory is accurate or not.

For example, it is a "fact" that the moon goes around the earth and this is supported by the "theory" of gravity. If the moon suddenly flew off into space, then the theory of gravity would have to be revised. Note that the definitions of "fact" and "theory" are different from their everyday uses, especially "theory" which DOES NOT MEAN "a guess" -- quite the opposite, in fact. Creationists, almost uniformly (and in Ham's case, intentionally), mix up the two and assume that the theory of evolution is as much of a guess as is the theory of gravity, the theory of electricity and others.

WRT to the Big Bang, it's considered a fact because of the huge number of observations which suggest that it happened. One of the more convincing bits of evidence is that if you listen (electronically) in a fairly simple way to the sky, you can hear the echo of the explosion bouncing around the cosmos. And this echo matches precisely with what we'd expect to be there if it the Big Bang had actually happened. There are plenty more lines of evidence, but that's an easy one.

BrianCalgary

Thanks for the replies. Very informative.

robindch

Out of interest, Brian, what did you take away from this exchange? ie, what did you learn that you'll remember in a week's time?

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

Thanks for the replies. Very informative.

Maybe you could reciprocate...

Anything I have read has the Earth about 12-14,000 yaers.

Were does the 12000 - 14000 years figure come from?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Out of interest, Brian, what did you take away from this exchange? ie, what did you learn that you'll remember in a week's time?

Where the 6,000 figure came from. I have a huge problem with it. We have been doing a film study series in Sunday School called 'That the World Should Knew'. It was produced by Focus on the Family. It was the taping of a class that went to do a study of the Holy Land. It focusses on the history contained in the OT. In one of the sessions a particular tell is spoken to have a gate that dates to 8,000 BC. So Archaeology tells us that the Earth is older than 6,000 years.

I think I'm getting clearer on how the scientific mind works.:eek:

bonkey wrote:

Were does the 12000 - 14000 years figure come from?

I'll check the titles of the books I've read, that seem to agree on the 12-14,000 year.

J C

Originally Posted by JC
……the Evolutionists shut down three threads in PANIC and HORROR when the evidence for Creation initially emerged.

Robin
Er, where's the PANIC and HORROR?

The three threads were closed down without warning with very active debates underway.
The indecent haste with which all three threads were shut down DOES indicate panic and horror at the ‘drubbing’ that Evolution was receiving – as well as the incontrovertible evidence for Creation which also emerged on all three threads.:D


Quote:-
The Irish Skeptics Society has the following aims:
To promote a scientific and rational point of view.
To promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills.
To promote the active questioning of claims in a variety of areas, which is noticeably absent at present.
To provide a forum for debate, discussion and rational argument on a range of relevant topics.
To provide an access point for media for skeptical responses to questionable claims.
To encourage the active involvement of people from a wide range of backgrounds.

The Skeptics, despite their name, AREN’T in the least sceptical about Evolution, which is one of the most questionable and dubious ideas in Modern Science.
Equally, despite claiming “to promote the active questioning of claims in a variety of areas, which is noticeably absent at present” ……they go on THEMSELVES to BAN all discussion of Evolution (and indeed Creation) on their own forum.

….and despite claiming “to promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills” they actually ‘swallow hook line and sinker’ the myth that muck spontaneously ‘evolved’ into Man – when even a five year old would dismiss such an implausible idea as nonsense!!!!:eek:

All pretence by the Skeptics to engage in “critical thinking” evaporates, when we consider the fact that there is NO objective evidence for ‘Muck to Man Evolution’ .............
.............and the Skeptics THEMSELVES have therefore become what they have derided in others – a people of deep unfounded FAITH in something with NO evidence for it’s existence!!!!!:D

Equally, the expressed desire of the Skeptics “to encourage the active involvement of people from a wide range of backgrounds” should be taken with ‘a (large) grain of salt’ – if one is a Creationist!!!!!:D

It is indeed noteworthy that the important philosophical and scientific 'Origins Debate' had to seek refuge on the Christianity Forum – while the supposedly 'sceptical' Skeptics used the blunt instrument of shuttting down THREE successive threads, to frustrate all attempts to critically examine the evidence for our 'origins'.


Scofflaw
I am sure that you will think me stupid for believing such a thing, but should the god you believe in turn out to exist, I am prepared to accept damnation rather than worship such a debased tyrant.

I don’t think that you are stupid …….you are just LOST.........temporarily one hopes!!

…..and God loves YOU despite your rebellion against Him

Even though God is all-powerful, He will NOT force you to worship Him – and He grants you free will.
Hardly the actions of a Despot!!!:)


Scofflaw
A tyrant may have the power to condemn, but to resist a tyrant is always the right choice, even if it not the easy one, something even an eight-year old can see. Mere power does not make God good, it makes him only powerful.
A just judge ALSO has the power (and responsibility) to condemn the guilty – and God is Good, Just and All-powerful!!!

However, Jesus came not to condemn, but to save (repentant) sinners……..

…….and we would ALL stand condemned in our sin, if God didn’t forgive us.:cool:


Wicknight
Accept "the creation" refers to humans ... so I guess you have lucked out on that one there JC. Another case of you not reading your Bible properly

Unless of course you want to argue that bacteria and pond slim are waiting to be saved??

OK, let us examine the verses:-
Rom 8:22-23 “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”

In Rom 8:22 St Paul confirms that the WHOLE CREATION i.e. all living creatures (including Pond Slime and all Humans), have become imperfect and are groaning under the burden of disease and death.

In Rom 8:23 St Paul then confirms that the effects of the Fall affects the saved as well as the unsaved.


Originally Posted by J C
It looked exactly like a Wasp, an Ant or a Human in peak health and vigour, looks like today

Wicknight
Why did it (pre-Fall creatures) have an immune system if disease didn't exist?
Not sure you thought that one through there JC

Even today, immune systems respond to disease challenges – and they stay dormant in the absence of disease challenges.

The pre-Fall creatures therefore may have had immune systems – but they didn’t need to use them – and so their immune systems probably remained dormant, until they were needed after the Fall!!!

You DIDN’T think that one through there Wicknight!!!:D


Wicknight
No its got nothing to do with facial features. Do you actually understand what the word physiognomies means

Eyes ARE a facial feature!!!!

Do YOU actually understand what the word physiognomies means???


Originally Posted by J C
I’m still waiting for any suggested improvements from you to the Sight Biochemical Cascade……

Wicknight
Certainly. The entire process wastes blood and risks the damage of the blood capillaries that feed the eye, which eventually leads to most people losing eyesight in later life. One improvement would be to well not waste blood or strengthen the capillaries.

Could I gently point out that you HAVEN’T made any suggested improvements to the Sight Biochemical Cascade……other than pointing out some of the degenerative effects of the Fall!!!

....and so I'm STILL waiting for any suggested improvements from you to the Sight Biochemical Cascade!!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
Other health factors can create problems for women at this stage, just like ageing and disease factors can also create health problems for women (and indeed men) at every stage of their lives!!

Wicknight
Again, badly designed system. Not perfect. Not even particularly good.

It is actually, a perfectly designed system - that has been corrupted by the Fall!!!!!


Wicknight
You remove the on set of osteoporosis by properly controlling the hormones
This is an effect of the ageing process – which is a direct result of the Fall!!


Wicknight
Wow, I must be smarter than God ....

Adam and Eve thought that they were smarter than God too……..

……and we all know what happened to them - as a result of that particular piece of 'wishful thinking'!!!:D


Scofflaw
building a modern state of the art planetarium to show a 3000-year old model of the "heavens"

I guess it is better than building a state of the art planetarium to demonstrate the myth of nothing blowing up !!!!:)


bonkey
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.

Only with Jesus Christ is there victory over sin and death!!!


pH
I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

…… Evolution was confined to ONLY the Holocene Epoch!!!

…..but you have made a good start, pH…….

……by rejecting “The Whole Triassic Period”!!!!:D

......keep up the good Onion ......... it's almost as funny as Evolution itself!!!!!!!

BTW Stephen Jossler is actually 'poking fun' at Theistic Evolutionists (and NOT Creationists) in this article http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_believe_in_evolution_except


Robin
Not that I'm obsessing about Ham or anything, but nobody else seems to be taking much notice of him.

Nobody is obsessing about AIG – except YOU………

Your deep and abiding interest in Ken Ham is indeed touching.:D


Could I also point out that the Evolutionists on this thread are still ignoring ‘the Elephant in the Sitting Room’ – i.e. THE (NON-EXISTENT) EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF EVOLUTION!!!

Out of fairness to Evolution, I must continue to point out that discussing the merits of ID and Scientific Creationism, while completely failing to provide ANY objective evidence for Evolution, IS eroding the faith other Evolutionists on this thread to the point of ‘apostasy’ – and thereby running the serious risk of a mass defection to Creationism!!!:D

.......strange but true!!!:)

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't think that can be said often enough. It's (Evolution) a Theory, not a "theory".

cordially,
Scofflaw

....and I don't think that it can be said often enough that Evolution has NO evidential support and so is scientifically INVALID!!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

....and I don't think that it can be said often enough that Evolution has NO evidential support and so is scientifically INVALID!!!!:D

Mmm. The, er, take-home lessons are different, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

BrianCalgary
I am curious about the 6,000 year age. Anything I have read has the Earth about 12-14,000 years. Where did the 6,000 number come from.

The 6,000 years approximates to the direct genealogies from Jesus Christ right back to Adam as recorded in the Bible.
.....and as you can see from this article the estimated date of Creation have varied from about 5,600 yearsago up to almost 7,000 years - depending upon the assumptions of the authors.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth

Another group of Creationists believe that these genealogies may be validly interpreted as having intergenerational gaps (i.e. the genealogy consists, in part, of a list of grandfather/grandson names and not entirely father/son names). This interpretation would stretch the timeframe out to about 10,000 years ago.

Although there may be valid Biblical reasons for accepting that 10,000 years have elapsed since the Creation, there are NO compelling scientific reasons for such a conclusion.
Although, biologists routinely refer to ‘billions of years’ ……..
…….historians are very uncertain about any events beyond as recently as 4,000 years ago – which they classify as ‘pre-historic’.
I think that ‘ante-diluvian’ would be more accurate – but I’m not going to quibble!!!:D

When it comes to Archaeology, there is also the possibility that some ‘Ante-Diluvian’ buildings may have, at least partially, survived the flood - because of the exceptional high quality of their construction and/or because the localised Flood Events in the vicinity of these structures were relatively non-destructive.:cool:


Robin
I believe the 12,000 year figure arose from an observation of one tree-ring which suggested that the tree was alive 12,000 years ago.

Firstly, please note that whether it’s 12,000 or 6,000 years it is ‘a far cry’ from the millions of years that Evolutionists talk about!!

Secondly, extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute.
Dendrochronology can only definitively age individual trees – any apparent overlap in the ring pattern between timber samples from different trees may be due to a coincidence of localised conditions in the growth patterns at two different times rather than proof of similar age.

According to The Guinness Book of Records, the oldest tree to be aged using Dendrochronology was a Bristlecone Pine aged 4,867 years when it was cut down in 1963 – thereby giving a germination date of 2,904 BC. This is currently the maximum age established by Dendrology. However, even this age comes with a ‘health warning’ because multiple growth rings have been observed within the one year in some Pine species and this Bristlecone Pine is likely to be somewhat younger than it’s number of rings suggests.
The age of this tree is also interesting in that it coincides with the approximate timing of Noah’s Flood, i.e 2,500 +/- 300 years BC.


Robin
Creationists, almost uniformly (and in Ham's case, intentionally), mix up the two and assume that the theory of evolution is as much of a guess as is the theory of gravity, the theory of electricity and others.

Creationists argue that the ‘theory of Evolution’ isn’t a scientifically valid Theory, due to a lack of evidential and logical support - while the Laws of Gravity and Electricity are fully scientifically validated.:D


Robin
One of the more convincing bits of evidence is that if you listen (electronically) in a fairly simple way to the sky, you can hear the echo of the explosion bouncing around the cosmos. And this echo matches precisely with what we'd expect to be there if it the Big Bang had actually happened.

Your supposed ‘echo of the Big Bang’ is the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. However, there is currently a very big problem with the CMB.

The CMB Background Radiation’s supposed relationship to the Big Bang has ‘gone up in smoke’ (amongst Evolutionists, as well as Creationists) and here is a quote from a recent edition of Science Daily on the matter:-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm

University of Alabama at Huntsville scientists are scratching their heads at a finding that may see the big bang “blown away” in the minds of scientists. Big bang advocates believe the cosmic explosion is responsible for the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation we observe. However, scientists have long predicted that galaxy clusters in the universe would deflect the CMB radiation, creating “shadows” in the observable radiation. But when the Alabama scientists measured this effect, they did not find any strong “shadows” as expected.
Equally last year, the same researchers published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have also been seen, but weren't, if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant.
This indicates that the CMB radiation may not be “behind” distant galaxies, but is much closer instead. Since the big bang interpretation REQUIRES the CMB radiation to be behind the farthest galaxies, this new discovery is a devastating blow to the Big Bang Model, and indicates that the CMB radiation cannot be leftover radiation from a Big Bang. Of course, this isn’t the only evidence against a big bang.”
…..and you can read up on the accumulating scientific evidence AGAINST the Big Bang here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by JC
……the Evolutionists shut down three threads in PANIC and HORROR when the evidence for Creation initially emerged.

Robin
Er, where's the PANIC and HORROR?

The three threads were closed down without warning with very active debates underway.
The indecent haste with which all three threads were shut down DOES indicate panic and horror at the ‘drubbing’ that Evolution was receiving – as well as the incontrovertible evidence for Creation which also emerged on all three threads.:D

Hmm. Are you not a little worried, then, that perhaps you're failing to 'drub' evolution on this thread, given that it hasn't been shut down in panic and horror? But perhaps you have a different preferred explanation?

J C wrote:

Quote:-
The Irish Skeptics Society has the following aims:
To promote a scientific and rational point of view.
To promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills.
To promote the active questioning of claims in a variety of areas, which is noticeably absent at present.
To provide a forum for debate, discussion and rational argument on a range of relevant topics.
To provide an access point for media for skeptical responses to questionable claims.
To encourage the active involvement of people from a wide range of backgrounds.

The Skeptics, despite their name, AREN’T in the least sceptical about Evolution, which is one of the most questionable and dubious ideas in Modern Science.

It's science - the skepticism is built in. There's not much need for additional skepticism, unless one believes the idea that millions of scientists for 150 years have been part of a global and watertight conspiracy. Which I imagine you do.

J C wrote:

Equally, despite claiming “to promote the active questioning of claims in a variety of areas, which is noticeably absent at present” ……they go on THEMSELVES to BAN all discussion of Evolution (and indeed Creation) on their forum.

Perhaps to avoid this sort of thread?

J C wrote:

….and despite claiming “to promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills” they actually ‘swallow hook line and sinker’ the myth that muck spontaneously ‘evolved’ into Man – when even a five year old would dismiss such an implausible idea as nonsense!!!!:eek:

I'm sure a five-year old would.

J C wrote:

It is indeed noteworthy that the important philosophical and scientific 'Origins Debate' had to seek refuge on the Christianity Forum – while the supposedly 'sceptical' Skeptics used the blunt instrument of shuttting down THREE successive threads, to frustrate all attempts to critically examine the evidence for our 'origins'.

That's because they consider the debate a waste of time and intellectual energy. As I'm sure you'd be the first to agree, it's impossible to convince someone who cannot even understand the argument, and extremely tedious to listen to the attempts.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
I am sure that you will think me stupid for believing such a thing, but should the god you believe in turn out to exist, I am prepared to accept damnation rather than worship such a debased tyrant.

I don’t think that you are stupid …….you are just LOST!!

…..and God loves YOU despite your rebellion against Him

Even though God is all-powerful, He will NOT force you to worship Him – and He grants you free will.
Hardly the actions of a Despot!!!:)

Hmm. Talk to wolfsbane. You're both Christians, I believe, but you appear to have rather different ideas on this.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
A tyrant may have the power to condemn, but to resist a tyrant is always the right choice, even if it not the easy one, something even an eight-year old can see. Mere power does not make God good, it makes him only powerful.
A just judge ALSO has the power (and responsibility) to condemn – and God is Good, Just and All-powerful!!!

I'm afraid the Bible is quite clear that He is nothing of the kind. You should read it - even though it lacks the smilies of proper intellectual discourse, it's still rather educational.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw

Actually, the rest of these aren't from my post, so I won't comment. They may be Wicknight?

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Why did it (pre-Fall creatures) have an immune system if disease didn't exist?
Not sure you thought that one through there JC

...

You DIDN’T think that one through there Scofflaw!!!:D

Well, no, I didn't, because I didn't post it. Don't think you read that one through there JC!

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
building a modern state of the art planetarium to show a 3000-year old model of the "heavens"

I guess it is better than building a state of the art planetarium to demonstrate the myth of nothing blowing up!!!!:)

I would think it was exactly the place for it.

J C wrote:

Could I also point out that the Evolutionists on this thread are still ignoring ‘the Elephant in the Sitting Room’ – i.e. THE (NON-EXISTENT) EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF EVOLUTION!!!

You are more than welcome to point out anything you like, real or imaginary. It's all part of the fun.

J C wrote:

Out of fairness to Evolution, I must continue to point out that discussing the merits of ID and Scientific Creationism, while completely failing to provide ANY objective evidence for Evolution, IS eroding the faith other Evolutionists on this thread to the point of ‘apostasy’ – and thereby running the serious risk of a mass defection to Creationism!!!:D

.......strange but true!!!:)

Well - you're half right, I suppose.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Originally Posted by J C
….and despite claiming “to promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills” they actually ‘swallow hook line and sinker’ the myth that muck spontaneously ‘evolved’ into Man – when even a five year old would dismiss such an implausible idea as nonsense!!!!

Scofflaw
I'm sure a five-year old would.

What a strange thing it must be to be a latter-day Evolutionist.......:eek:

......afraid to provide any evidence for Evolution because you are afraid that it will be shown to be invalid.........:eek:

......afraid that even a five year old child will work out that Evolution is nonesense!!!!:D

......afraid that somebody will laugh out loud the next time that you say "bilions of years"!!!!:D

......afraid to shovel muck lest you show disrespect for your ancestors!!!:D

.......afraid that some child will mention the dreaded word 'Creation' in science class!!!:D

.......afraid that The Big Bang has just 'gone up in smoke'!!!!:D


Scofflaw
Talk to wolfsbane. You're both Christians, I believe, but you appear to have rather different ideas on this.

Wolfsbane is an excellent Bible student and I generally defer to his wisdom on matters theological.

While I fully accept God's sovereignty over our lives, I am also not fully 'electionist' in my outlook - and I therefore believe that our free will plays a significant part in our decisions to be saved.

Any differences between myself and Wolfsbane are ones of emphasis rather that of substance!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
….and despite claiming “to promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills” they actually ‘swallow hook line and sinker’ the myth that muck spontaneously ‘evolved’ into Man – when even a five year old would dismiss such an implausible idea as nonsense!!!!

Scofflaw
I'm sure a five-year old would.

What a strange thing it must be to be a latter-day Evolutionist.......:eek:

......afraid to provide any evidence for Evolution because you are afraid that it will be shown to be invalid.........:eek:

......afraid that even a five year old child will work out that Evolution is nonesense!!!!:D

......afraid that somebody will laugh out loud the next time that you say "bilions of years"!!!!:D

......afraid to shovel muck lest you show disrespect for your ancestors!!!:D

.......afraid that some child will mention the dreaded word 'Creation' in science class!!!:D

.......afraid that The Big Bang has just 'gone up in smoke'!!!!:D

Sigh. None of those things has happened, JC. You just refuse to admit that evidence for evolution is evidence for evolution, because you don't want it to be. You've never given any positive evidence for Creationism, because there isn't any. All you've done is pretend that minor-flaw-X or misunderstanding-Y somehow invalidates a theory you don't even begin to comprehend. You repeat the claim that there's no evidence for evolution like an adman hoping to persuade us that black is white by sheer repetition, ignoring the fact that many of us are trained scientists who can tell the difference between science and salesmanship.

I don't want children taught Creationism in science class because the general level of scientific understanding is quite low enough without pretending pseudoscience is science. We live in a scientific age, and most of our problems are the rather sophisticated scientific problems of a technological civilisation, not the simple problems of the Ancient Middle East. Deliberately rendering them incapable of even understanding their own civilisation by filling them full of ancient mistakes is more than counter-productive - it is idiotic.

A five-year old may well think evolution is nonsense, but that's because a five-year old knows next to nothing about reality, and has a limited grasp on the difference between it and fantasy. Adults, on the other hand, should act like adults, instead of clinging to a five-year old's cartoon universe - but then, I am addressing someone whose posts are half-filled with little cartoons.

Finally, I really don't care who laughs if I say "billions of years". The laughter of the stupid serves only to show their stupidity. It has no bearing on truth. I should only be sorry if it was someone I liked, since it would show that I had gravely overestimated them.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Talk to wolfsbane. You're both Christians, I believe, but you appear to have rather different ideas on this.

Wolfsbane is an excellent Bible student and I generally defer to his wisdom on matters theological.

While I fully accept God's sovereignty over our lives, I am also not fully 'electionist' in my outlook - and I therefore believe that our free will plays a significant part in our decisions to be saved.

Any differences between myself and Wolfsbane are ones of emphasis rather that of substance!!!:D

No, it's not a matter of emphasis. The difference is as stark as whether I can of my own free will come to God, or have to have been chosen by God to come to Him. It's the difference between free will and no free will - and if that isn't substantial to you, it is to me. Wolfsbane does not come-hither me as you do, because he believes that God has either chosen me to be saved, or not.

rather wearily,
Scofflaw

I really don't think it's worth bothering with him anymore, scofflaw...
any casual readers will have gotten the message by now

J C

Scofflaw
Are you not a little worried, then, that perhaps you're failing to 'drub' evolution on this thread, given that it hasn't been shut down in panic and horror? But perhaps you have a different preferred explanation?

‘Muck to Man’ Evolution has been annihilated on this thread!!!!!

……the Evolutionists shut down three threads in PANIC when the evidence for Creation initially emerged.

However, the panic has subsided somewhat since then – and the Evolutionists have concentrated on avoiding ANY discussion of Evolution and making mantra-like remarks about Creationists not being ‘real’ scientists – despite the fact that many have impeccable conventional science qualifications and they operate at the very highest levels of academia!!!!

Evolutionist have also continued to pop in with suggestions to close the thread as well as remarks along the following lines:-
bluewolf
I really don't think it's worth bothering with him anymore, scofflaw...
any casual readers will have gotten the message by now


However, Evolutionists have NEVER provided any evidence for Evolution – it’s almost like some kind of religious taboo exists amongst Evolutionists to not do so……..:D

………yet amazingly they claim that whole libraries exist with nothing but lists of evidence for Evolution. However, they steadfastly refuse to share this precious information!!!:D

……..I wonder WHY????

……I wonder, could it be a case of the ‘Emperor having no clothes’????

…..and Evolution really doesn’t have ANY evidence for it’s existence that cannot be better explained by Creation?

…..this thread would certainly indicate that this is the case!!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
You just refuse to admit that evidence for evolution is evidence for evolution, because you don't want it to be

Such an allegation might have some substance, IF you had provided ANY evidence for Evolution, in the first place.

Could I suggest that the opposite is actually true and the evidence for Creation is so overwhelming that YOU have gone into ‘denial’ so that you can continue to grimly cling to your (unfounded) faith in your Pond Slime ancestry!!!!:)


Scofflaw
You've never given any positive evidence for Creationism, because there isn't any.

I have – and let me repeat a tiny fraction of it AGAIN:-

The creation of the Universe and God himself are not repeatably observable. However, strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE does exist for both God and Creation – and strong circumstantial evidence IS acceptable in a Court of Law where it has a STATUS OF PROOF approaching scientific and eyewitness evidence.

In any event, here are some of the basic Circumstantial Proofs for the existence of God :-

1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.
2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.
3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.
4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.
6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God


Each science discipline provides incontrovertible evidence for Creation as follows:-

1. Geology shows that all fossils are less than c. 7,000 years old with the vast majority of fossils dating from Noah’s Flood 5,000 +/- 500 years ago. The assumption that the millions of so-called “annual micro layers” observed in deep sedimentary rock layers such as the Grand Canyon represented millions of years of sedimentary deposition was disproved during the Mount St Helens volcanic eruption in 1980 when hundreds of thousands of “micro layers” were observed to be laid down in newly formed sedimentary rocks in a matter of hours.
Equally, polystrate tree fossils are observed ‘standing up through’ sedimentary rock layers that supposedly took millions of years to lay down – the logical conclusion is that that these layers were laid down rapidly and not over millions of years. It is ridiculous to postulate that a dead tree stood upright for millions of years while slow deposition of sediment gradually buried it. The fact that the ‘bottom’ of the fossilised tree is observed to be as well preserved as the ‘top’ is also a ‘bit of a giveaway’ that very rapid burial took place. Deep sedimentary rock layers therefore do not indicate ‘long ages’ – only a catastrophic worldwide disaster!!!!

Radioactive dating of rocks doesn’t work in PRINCIPLE – because we cannot know what the starting levels of radioactivity were or if further radioactivity was added or taken away (for example, by the differential leaching of the radioactive chemicals such as Potassium) during the ‘life’ of the rock. It also doesn’t work in PRACTICE – because erroneous (very large) ages are routinely obtained from rocks of recent KNOWN ages.


2. Palaeontology shows the sequence in which creatures were killed and buried during Noah’s Flood – seafloor dwelling creatures and flocculated plankton first – all the way up to large land animals and birds, that obviously would be last to ‘succumb to the waves’. The extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (unfossilized) dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in supposedly multiple million year old amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed. If these bones / insects were, in fact, millions of years old, all biological material in them would have completely degenerated by now. The observed rates of biological degeneration under such conditions would give maximal ages of a few thousand years for these bones / insects.
The list of species in the so-called Geological Column represents the order of their catastrophic burial and it is NOT a record of their supposed evolution.

Equally, using collections of animal and plant fossils to ‘date’ a rock on the basis of Evolutionary assumptions in relation to the assumed position of these creatures in the ‘Evolutionary Tree’ is only valid if Evolution (and its Tree) are scientifically valid. It is actually an example of circular reasoning in action.
Strata, which hold the same collection of fossils, could indicate that these creatures were buried during the same stage of the Flood Event for a number of reasons including their physical location in the Biosphere or the place where they gathered together before being drowned. It could also be related to their size, shape or hydrodynamic characteristics.

3. Taxonomy shows the CURRENT biological relationships among species that have arisen through speciation processes acting on the original created Kinds.
Evolution explains nothing more than the scientifically valid phenomenon of Natural Selection, and this isn’t contested by Creation Scientists.



Scofflaw
You repeat the claim that there's no evidence for evolution like an adman hoping to persuade us that black is white by sheer repetition, ignoring the fact that many of us are trained scientists who can tell the difference between science and salesmanship.

If you can tell the difference between science and salesmanship, then you should provide some evidence for Evolution – it might ultimately be better than sitting ‘with your fingers in your ears’ repeating the mantra that “there is evidence for Evolution” – yet stubbornly refusing to provide ANY evidence!!!!:D


Scofflaw
I don't want children taught Creationism in science class because the general level of scientific understanding is quite low enough without pretending pseudoscience is science.

Telling people that Evolution is a fact and providing no evidence for such an assertion, certainly could contribute to a low “level of scientific understanding”!!!!!:D


Scofflaw
We live in a scientific age, and most of our problems are the rather sophisticated scientific problems of a technological civilisation,

Quite true – and the 'resurrection' of the ancient myth of the 'Spontaneous Evolution Mankind', without providing any objective evidence for this assertion, certainly doesn’t increase our scientific understanding!!!:D


Scofflaw
Deliberately rendering them (children) incapable of even understanding their own civilisation by filling them full of ancient mistakes is more than counter-productive - it is idiotic.

This would certainly be true for any Christian children that are ‘force fed’ Evolutionism without any reference to the truth of Direct Divine Creation!!!!!:D


Scofflaw
A five-year old may well think evolution is nonsense, but that's because a five-year old knows next to nothing about reality,

Most five year olds can ask very sophisticated questions – and because they have not yet been programmed to ‘think like the herd’ they have a habit of asking some very awkward questions indeed?:eek:


Scofflaw
Finally, I really don't care who laughs if I say "billions of years".

Just as well then – because laughter is going to become increasingly common as people realise how funny it is that Evolutionists continue to claim that something that is dead, will spontaneously ‘come alive’ over “billions of years”.:)


Scofflaw
Wolfsbane does not come-hither me as you do, because he believes that God has either chosen me to be saved, or not

Wolfsbane DOES believe that he should witness to you as part of God’s Divine Plan.
I believe that your are saved by exercising your free will in tandem with God’s Divine Providence.

We both believe in God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Free Will – I just give slightly more ‘weight’ to the exercise of our Free Will, than Wolfsbane does!!!!

…….and having seen how stubbornly the unsaved hold to their positions on this thread …… I am increasingly inclined ‘to go with’ Wolfsbane’s belief in the election of the saved!!!!:eek:

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

I really don't think it's worth bothering with him anymore, scofflaw...
any casual readers will have gotten the message by now

I know. I've not been bothering to comment on his increasingly silly "points" recently, but every so often it's impossible not to comment. Certainly the seed falls on stony ground - wolfsbane's attitude is at least comprehensible (that he doesn't know science, and it isn't relevant to his faith), but JC appears to comprehend almost nothing, to wish to know even less than he is capable of understanding, and believe that he knows everything. Delusional doesn't begin to cover it.

Anyway, anyone who wishes to consider the evidence for evolution can easily open any school biology textbook. Only willful ignorance prevents learning.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

JC wrote:

……the Evolutionists shut down three threads in PANIC when the evidence for Creation initially emerged.

Well, let's take a look at the evidence for this PANIC, shall we?

Thread 1, shut down here when Davros pointed out that the thread was, as expected, going nowhere. Wicknight's last posting on that thread said that he "couldn't be arsed" refuting JC's claims, because everybody had already done it "5 times each". That was over two years ago and thing haven't changed much, except that Wicknight clearly remains bothered about your continuing stream of penny dreadfuls.

Thread 2, shut down here when Davros pointed out a second time, that the thread was rutted.

Thread 3, which pointed to the predecessor of this thread and which was prioritized by davros to make sure that everybody knew about it.

Er, where's the PANIC? Or, by any chance, would you be trying to conjure up a controversy by being less than honest about the facts?

I think I'm getting the hang of arguing with creationists at last.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

All scientists were Creationists originally. Until the evidence became too overwhelming and Creationism had to be abandoned. This happened about 150-100 years ago.

I'm amazed by this piece of history. NO atheists before 1850? All the scientists were believers? No ready acceptance in the scientific community of Darwin's ideas? Just a reluctant, gradual shift?

Universal Guide to Western Religion

Step 1 - Convince someone that there is a fault with them that is beyond their power to fix. Ignore any protests that the person believes they are fine/happy/content/moral and continue to convince them that even if they feel this it is a delusion and they really are broken (see Scientology for master class for this step)

Step 2 - Convince them that ignoring this fault will have devastating future effects. Again even if the person has a good life at the moment, believes they are happy/content/moral/good convince them that in the future this will change.

Step 3 - Tell them that only that religion A is able to fix this fault or save them from this problem. Emphasize that no matter what the person does it will not help unless they embrace the religion. Being a better person, professional help, doctors, moral teaching etc are all useless without the religion. The person must join the religion to be fixed

Step 4 - Convert and repeat. Once the person is suitably brainwashed they will happily attempt to convert future members using the above methodology. They will also have the advantage of actually believing it.

Wolfsbane you should really do a Scientology Personality Test sometime, you might be surprised by how familiar the "pitch" is .....

Certainly, identifying the truth and then twisting that to make them follow you is a very potent device. It does not make the truth any less true, however. Just the response to it harmful instead of helpful.

Satan was its first practioner:
Genesis 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Last part, true. First part, a lie.

You have rightly identified a psychological abuse, but you wrongly infer from it that religion (at least Western Religion) must be phoney. It does not follow. It may be that one religion rightly advances the truths abused here.

I would love to stick Wolfsbane in with a standard for something like Scientology or any other religious cult and have them go at each other with this stuff ... I could sell ticket

Glad to oblige - and I'll not even want a share of the gate!

wolfsbane

bonkey to JC:

The point I was making is that self-proclaimed Creation Scientists - like yourself - do not limit themselves to commenting on their areas of expertise, nor do they - again, taking yourself as an example - limit their comments to being scientific in nature despite claiming to speak as a scientist.

So Dawkins also is also disqualified? Don't you think you are limiting life a lot? Obviously, they cannot speak with equal weight about all things, but to question their scientific arguments because they also interact in a wider debate seems bizarre to me.

J C

Scofflaw
JC appears to comprehend almost nothing, to wish to know even less than he is capable of understanding, and believe that he knows everything.

I have asked you to provide me with the evidence for Evolution.

I have therefore shown my willingness to learn about new and exotic things, like Evolution - and in doing so I have indicated that I don’t know everything.

You have refused to help me understand Evolution by refusing to give me the evidence you claim to have for it’s existence.
My educational deficiencies in relation to Evolution are therefore totally YOUR fault!!:eek:
I have tried my best to update myself on Evolution – but you appear to be withholding vital evidence from me, which you say proves that Evolution exists.

If you have such evidence then please share it with Humanity – and a Nobel Prize will undoubtedly be winging it’s way to you!!!!!:D


Scofflaw
anyone who wishes to consider the evidence for evolution can easily open any school biology textbook.

…….but Scofflaw I don’t possess such a book – could you please extract the evidence from one and put it onto this thread so that we can all educate ourselves!!!:)


Scofflaw

Only willful ignorance prevents learning.

Yes indeed, wilful ignorance can be a very stubborn trait!!!

Is that why Evolutionists continue to believe that they were spontaneously evolved by random undirected processes - or is there something else at work??!!!!


Robin
Well, let's take a look at the evidence for this PANIC, shall we?

OK.

The three threads were closed down WITHOUT WARNING with a very ACTIVE debate underway.
The indecent haste with which all three threads were shut down DOES indicate panic and horror at the ‘drubbing’ that Evolution was receiving on all three threads – as well as the incontrovertible evidence for Creation which also emerged on all three threads.

Such precipitous actions can only be explained by PANIC because of ‘a crisis of faith’ in Evolution amongst the Sketics.
The laudable aim of the Irish Skeptics Forum “to promote the active questioning of claims in a variety of areas, which is noticeably absent at present” is completely at odds with their BANNING of all discussion of Evolution (and indeed Creation) and it certainly DOESN’T account for their rapid closure of all three threads.:D


Robin

I think I'm getting the hang of arguing with creationists at last.

….and I think that I’m getting the hang of how Evolutionists argue.
They make bald, unfounded statements of Faith and provide no substantiating evidence for such beliefs – and then they then 'sit back' and hope that Evolution will somehow prove itself !!!!

……when Evolution doesn’t prove itself, Evolutionists take personal umbrage at being asked to justify their claims about the supposed spontaneous life-generating powers of muck - and they then play complex semantic word games with anybody who asks them to explain their unfounded beliefs!!!!:eek:

……and the number one rule seems to be to NEVER provide any evidence for Evolution !!!:D

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Interestingly, this seems to be a common, but generally unspoken, belief amongst the religious: that humans are inherently evil and order can therefore only be maintained by retributive authorities. The idea that people can self-organize, or can behave socially once they do, seems -- despite conclusive evidence to the contrary -- to be largely rejected.

Please list the police-less societies. I seem to have missed them all. :rolleyes:

With that in mind, it's easy to see why religious people are selectively drawn to authoritarian frameworks like, er, religion! It also suggests that the creator didn't do much of a job creating humans, but I expect "The Fall" might show up as an explanation for why this might appear to be so.

I'm glad your theology is improving. Yes, Man was not created with the fallen nature he now is born with. As to being drawn to authoritarian frameworks , I think the individual naturally prefers to be his own dictator, but reality often impresses on him the weakness of his position and the advisability of entering with others into a pact that will use force to defend their interests. Our democratic society is an example. We of course want to have the maximum liberty for ourselves, so it is a bit of a trade-off with giving the State authority over us. If we are wise, we avoid dictatorships as far as possible.

The spiritual aspect of authoritarian is another matter. It is a response to our recognition of the existence of something 'more' than ourselves and the material world. We know in our hearts that God exists, but that is not a comfortable truth, so we shape that god to our own desires/fears. Even atheists substitute something for God, as in Marxism, humanism, or just hedonism.

The tragedy has been the willingness of mankind to accept even the worst type of religious dictators and vilest practices, rather than submit to the God who is there. He brings true freedom to the soul, freedom from sin:
Matthew 11:28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

wolfsbane

Sangre said:

God gifted us with nice, atheist neighbours?

Yes. And nice, Christian ones, and many other types as well. I'm always grateful for good neighbours, having experienced some bad ones in the past.

Quote:
Your man-ward goodness does not change the fact that inwardly you are a sinful mess. God's restraint upon you gives you a tender conscience toward your fellowman, but that only continues as long as God keeps His hand upon you. Were He to remove it, your pleasant nature would vapourise and your sinful heart would manifest itself in all manner of wickedness.


Probably one of the most insulting things I've ever read.

I'm glad it touched you. Yes, the truth often hurts before it can heal.

Quote:
Yes, measuring God by man's standard is bound to make Him look a bully. When you see it from God's side, it's totally different.

How would you know?

By having God's Spirit show me that in His word.

Quote:
But God grants faith and repentance to some, changing their evil hearts so that they believe in and love Him. Murderers, rapists, thieves, homosexuals, adulterers,...

So we've no free will? So your belief has nothing to do with you?

Our will is free to act according to what our hearts desire. If God does not change our hearts (our nature) then we will always reject Him. Once He changes it, we will gladly and freely accept Him - for that will be our heart's desire.

Quote:
Through your own choice. God never damns those who trust in Him.

You've made it quite clear we don't have choices in our post.

You haven't been paying attention then. We freely choose, according to our natures.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

What a crock! When he sins it his his free will. However when he is good it is God's restraining hand. I've never heard another Christian say this. Surely it is possible for us to do good stuff ourselves, we aren't that bleedin' degenerate.

The unregenerate do good stuff , but only because God prevents them being so degenerate. God preserves this world from rapid destruction by this common grace.

These two bits are decidedly against free will. God decides if we can understand the Good News and if our hearts can be changed, not us. We can only accept Jesus if God chooses. Again this is the complete opposite of what I hear from most Christians.

It is a different understanding of free-will than many hold, but it is the Biblical one. It is the historic view of the Reformed churches, but also held by a section of the Roman Catholic church. Even Methodism holds to a version of it called Prevenient Grace., in which it is necessary for God to change the heart for free-will ( in your sense) to be exercised.

My view, Calvinism, sees man freely exercise his will - it is just that he does so according to his heart's wish. To use a simple analogy: would a heterosexual exercise his free-will to have same-sex relationship? Why not? Because his will is not free? No, but because it is the last thing he desires.

So too man needs to have his sinful nature changed, if he is to love God.
Matthew 11: 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. 26 Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. 28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Yes, the second law of thermodynamics, which is a different statement and not about entropy. It implies or can be used to derive the fact that entropy increases in a system. However when Boltzmann et al were making Thermodynamics, entropy came very late in the day and the second law was formulated far earlier and does not refer explicitly to entropy.
If you reexpress the law in terms of entropy you get a statement roughly similar to what wikipedia says.
However for this to be meaningful you need to know what entropy is. Entropy is not disorder. They are occasionally related but they are not the same. Disorder is actually a different quantity all together. For instance when a planet forms entropy shoots way up, yet the thing is more ordered. For some reason people are obsessed with Entropy being disorder.

Entropy is measured in Joules per Kelvin. Is disorder measured in Joules per Kelvin?

OK, let me rephrase my statement then: the observation that the universe is moving overall from a complex state (especially biological life) toward a non-complex one (the death of all things, especially biological life) is an indication that life did not arise from non-life and proceed to ever more complex forms.

Entropy is a measure of how generic a system is or how non-unique its past is. How is the fact that the non-uniqueness of somethings past increases over time evidence of divine creation?

I only need to concern myself with the glaring fact that Entropy declares, not how it ebbs and flows in individual spots. There is no debate about where entropy is eventually taking us, despite any detours. Yes, I overstated when I said it was evidence for divine creation; I should have said it is evidence against the evolutionary scenario.

Evolutionary model: Time+Energy=Today's complexity (heading upward)
Creationist model: Perfect Complexity+the Fall+Time+Energy=Today's complexity (heading downward)
Which fits best with entropy?

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Wolfsbane...given that the last discussion you and I shared before this was a request for you to supply your understanding of something, I can't understand what you ground this claim on.

If you want to make a case that work is scientific, then make the case. At that point, there's something to respond to.

Until then, you don't get to shift the burden of proof by just repeating your assertions, claiming them to be true, then insisting the other side are the ones turning a deaf ear by refusing to address them.

You can continue to try, but doing so only adds weight to the assertion that either you don't know what science is about or you do know and are therefore being wilfully misleading. Needless to say, neither option is beneficial to your case.

Yes, you wanted me to give a scientific defence of the idea that rock can be rapidly folded. You would not accept links to sites where scientists discuss such things and offer examples. Yet you know I'm not a scientist.

So what you are really attempting to do is to stop outsiders asking embarrassing questions or pointing to scientific rebuttals of your cherished beliefs.

Saying you won't resond until I present the scientific defence sounds like fingers-in-ears-with-accompanying-mantra to me.

2Scoops

robindch wrote:

I think I'm getting the hang of arguing with creationists at last.

control + C
control + V
ignore response
repeat

Honestly, I think J C is losing interest when he can't even be bothered writing something new and resorts to plagiarizing his own posts about the 'incontrovertible' evidence for creation. In fact, if this level of apathy persists he is in danger of losing faith and risks a defection to evolutionism !!!!!!

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

bonkey to JC:

So Dawkins also is also disqualified? Don't you think you are limiting life a lot? Obviously, they cannot speak with equal weight about all things, but to question their scientific arguments because they also interact in a wider debate seems bizarre to me.

Wait. Wolfsbane has started using smilies?

Scary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
JC appears to comprehend almost nothing, to wish to know even less than he is capable of understanding, and believe that he knows everything.

I have asked you to provide me with the evidence for Evolution.

I have therefore shown my willingness to learn about new and exotic things, like Evolution - and in doing so I have indicated that I don’t know everything.

Er, no, JC. You ask for evidence solely in order to jeer at it. That is not an indication of willingness to learn, but an indication of willingness to jeer, while not learning.

J C wrote:

You have refused to help me understand Evolution by refusing to give me the evidence you claim to have for it’s existence.

They have been given repeatedly. We have variously shown the evidence for mutations producing new things (frame-shift mutation producing a nylon-digesting enzyme), for intermediate forms (land-to-whale transitions for example), and the age of the Earth (radiometric dating), examples of speciation - amongst many other things.

All you need do is go back through the thread - which surely you can do as well as anyone. Come to that, you were there, weren't you?

I fear you are only pretending that no evidence has been presented - for the benefit of anyone who might only be reading these few pages. It's either that or Alzheimer's.

Come, JC. We're not going to go over it all again for your benefit - your best hope is to get the thread shut down so that you can claim victory.

J C wrote:

My educational deficiencies in relation to Evolution are therefore totally YOUR fault!!:eek:
I have tried my best to update myself on Evolution – but you appear to be withholding vital evidence from me, which you say proves that Evolution exists.

No. The evidence for evolution is freely available in thousands of books, thousands of school courses, and thousands of websites. Perhaps you should avail of more than AnswersInGenesis when you're looking for information. Is it not written - seek, and ye shall find?

J C wrote:

If you have such evidence then please share it with Humanity – and a Nobel Prize will undoubtedly be winging it’s way to you!!!!!:D

Tedious. No Nobel prize is available at this stage for proving one of science's most solidly proven theories - but a Nobel prize is available to you if you have proof of Creation, as you claim, or even something that would genuinely knock a hole in evolution.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
anyone who wishes to consider the evidence for evolution can easily open any school biology textbook.

…….but Scofflaw I don’t possess such a book – could you please extract the evidence from one and put it onto this thread so that we can all educate ourselves!!!:)

A large number of people have declared themselves quite educated by this thread - you and wolfsbane are the startling exceptions, in both cases because you are unwilling to accept evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

I would be very surprised if a qualified scientist didn't have somewhere about the house a biology textbook. One can hardly avoid learning about biology in the course of scientific education - although you seem to have done...

J C wrote:

Scofflaw

Only willful ignorance prevents learning.

Yes indeed, wilful ignorance can be a very stubborn trait!!!

Is that why Evolutionists continue to believe that they were spontaneously evolved by random undirected processes - or is there something else at work??!!!!

You accept natural selection yourself, so it's difficult to see what you're talking about?

J C wrote:

The three threads were closed down WITHOUT WARNING with a very ACTIVE debate underway.
The indecent haste with which all three threads were shut down DOES indicate panic and horror at the ‘drubbing’ that Evolution was receiving on all three threads – as well as the incontrovertible evidence for Creation which also emerged on all three threads.

Perhaps you might like to repeat some of that "incontrovertible evidence" for our benefit. Nothing you've offered so far has been anything other than rubbish.

J C wrote:

……and they then play complex semantic word games with anybody who asks them to explain their unfounded beliefs!!!!:eek:

JC, your idea of a "complex semantic word game" is being asked to look at any sentence that contains meaningful information.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

2Scoops
I think J C is losing interest when he can't even be bothered writing something new and resorts to plagiarizing his own posts

I’m not losing interest – it is just sometimes difficult to improve on the perfection of some my previous posts…….:D

………and isn’t plagiarizing your OWN writing an oxymoron or something????!!!


Scofflaw
Wait. Wolfsbane has started using smilies?

Scary.

Be afraid ……. be very afraid!!!!:D


Scofflaw
You ask for evidence solely in order to jeer at it.

I asked for evidence to 'scientifically evaluate' it ……….grrr...:eek:


Scofflaw
You accept natural selection yourself, so it's difficult to see what you're talking about?

Yes, NS can select between different organisms with different pre-existing genetic information and it’s resultant phenotype traits.

However, NS is powerless to generate the Complex Specified Information (CSI) in living organisms, in the first place.
Equally, mutations can only degrade CSI – and so we are left with only one explanation for the massive quantities of CSI observed in living things – an input of Intelligence and Creative ability of enormous proportions.:cool:

While science cannot prove that this input was made by the God of the Bible, it can definitively conclude that such an input of Creative Intelligence was made!!!

Energy always runs ‘down hill’ without an external energy input.
So too, Complex Specified Information is always degraded by random applied processes – and therefore CSI cannot be produced without an external intelligent input…….

……and that is actually why Robin is employed to write the CSI in the excellent computer programmes that he undoubtedly produces!!!:)

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
You ask for evidence solely in order to jeer at it.

I asked for evidence to 'scientifically evaluate' it ……….grrr...:eek:

No, you don't. Indeed, it seems you can't. You ask solely to jeer, and try to "knock holes in it", which would work better if you did try to understand it first.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
You accept natural selection yourself, so it's difficult to see what you're talking about?

Yes, NS can select between different organisms with different pre-existing genetic information and it’s resultant phenotype traits.

However, NS is powerless to generate the Complex Specified Information (CSI) in living organisms, in the first place.
Equally, mutations can only degrade CSI – and so we are left with only one explanation for the massive quantities of CSI observed in living things – an input of Intelligence and Creative ability of enormous proportions.:cool:

Rubbish. Mutations are perfectly capable of generating entirely new information - as per the nylon-digesting enzyme (I see you prefer to ignore it - again). Natural selection, in turn, works on that new information, just as you say.

Your very silly suggestion requires, as we've discussed before, all possible genetic information for an organism to be present in the genome of that organism - something that is simply observed not to be true.

As for "Complex Specified Information" - we've been over that one for several pages too. You have never provided a definition, without which the term is just impressive-sounding snake oil.

J C wrote:

While science cannot prove that this input was made by the God of the Bible, it can definitively conclude that such an input of Creative Intelligence was made!!!

Science - real science - the science done by millions of men and women of all faiths all round the world - proves nothing of the sort, as we both know.

J C wrote:

Energy always runs ‘down hill’ without an external energy input.
So too, Complex Specified Information is always degraded by random applied processes – and therefore CSI cannot be produced without an external intelligent input…….

1. the Sun is a big energy source (that's the big yellow thing in the sky)

2. intelligence isn't an energy source

Life on Earth certainly couldn't proceed without an energy source, but as we see from (1), it has one. Since intelligence isn't an energy source, life's requirement for an external energy cource certainly doesn't imply any requirement for and input of intelligence.

Really, JC, could you be thicker? Or more dishonest - whichever one it is?

Scofflaw