The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Son Goku

Read this and cry:http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/eppure-si-muoveor-does-it/

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Just a thought………

I have re-read Darwin’s Origin of Species recently, and I am even more impressed with the man, than I was, when I first read the book when I was fourteen!!!.:D

His prose is somewhat long-winded, but most of what Darwin wrote in this book, allowing for the state of scientific knowledge during the mid 19th Century, is consistent with the Natural Selection, Genetic Variation and Speciation of Created Kinds, which Creation Science accepts as scientifically valid.

I sometimes wonder are you aware that evolutionary science has moved on since.

J C wrote:

Evolutionists could recprocate by presenting a 'Ham Medal' for excellence in research into 'Scientific Difficulies with Evolution' !!!:D

....and I think that it would be a nice gesture to invite Dr Ken Ham to present the Medal !!!!:D

Well, it would be funny. Perhaps at the IgNobels?

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Son Goku wrote:

Read this and cry:http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/eppure-si-muoveor-does-it/

Could I gently remind you that ONLY Evolution can be taught by law in US Public Schools.........

........maybe IF they allowed Creation Science to be taught you would have no need for your tears????!!!!:eek:

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

I sometimes wonder are you aware that evolutionary science has moved on since (Darwin).

cordially,
Scofflaw

That IS my point - I have also discovered that Darwin's ideas bear little or no relationship with 'Modern Evolution' - which has actually gone backwards from it's 'high point' with the publication of Origin of Species!!!

Darwin's ideas actually help explain the Natural Selection, Genetic Variation and Speciation of Created Kinds, which Creation Science now accepts as scientifically valid !!!!:D

So roll on, the Darwin Medal for Excellence in Baraminology Research, The Darwin Institiute of Creation Science and possibly even a new Darwin Creation Science Museum!!!!

If Darwin were alive today he would probably be an ID Proponent, or possibly even a Creation Scientist!!!:D

bonkey

J C wrote:

........maybe IF they allowed Creation Science to be taught you would have no need for your tears?

If they allowed Creation Science to be taught, they would have already discarded any honest acknowledgement or informed stance of what science is, which would be a greater cause for tears.

You are correct, in the sense that if we lower our standards, then we can not fall as short. I can't see how it would be an improvement, regardless of how many Creationists it brings joy to.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

That IS my point - I have discovered that Darwin's ideas bear little or no relationship with 'Modern Evolution' - which has actually gone backwards from it's 'high point' with the publication of Origiin of Species!!!

Your discoveries never cease to amaze.

J C wrote:

If Darwin were alive today he would probably be an ID Proponent, or possibly even a Creation Scientist!!!:D

Certainly, I think he'd recognise your side of the argument rather more than 'his'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Son Goku wrote:

Eh,..... duh? Obviously evolution requires long timescales.

Evolution needs 'long ages' and Creationism can 'live with' either 'long ages' or recent Creation......

.........so Creationists can therefore make an objective judgement on the age of the Earth..........

......while, as you have said yourself, "evolution requires long timescales" !!!!:D

J C

Originally Posted by Scofflaw
I sometimes wonder are you aware that evolutionary science has moved on since (Darwin).

Originally Posted by J C
That IS my point - I have also discovered that Darwin's ideas bear little or no relationship with 'Modern Evolution'…………

Scofflaw
Your discoveries never cease to amaze.

I see that BOTH you and I have discovered that Darwin’s writings bear little or no relationship to ‘Modern Evolution’……….:eek:

………….so is Darwin about to be abandoned by the Evolutionists and become a new ‘Creationist Icon’????!!!!!

…….watch this space!!!!:D

J C

Scofflaw
Certainly, I think he'd (Darwin would) recognise your side of the argument rather more than 'his'.

….. Darwin was an original thinker who believed that the evidence should determine the ‘Origins Issue’ ……

so he probably would be very interested in modern Creation Science…….:eek:

……as I have already said, if Darwin were alive today he probably would be an ID Proponent, or possibly even a Creation Scientist!!!

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Evolution needs 'long ages' and Creationism can 'live with' either 'long ages' or recent Creation......

.........so Creationists can therefore make an objective judgement on the age of the Earth..........

......while, as you have said yourself, "evolution requires long timescales" !!!!:D

You just made creationism's unfalsifiability out to be a strength. Evolution has an explicit requirement for testing, that's a good thing. The fact that creationism can handle both isn't a good thing.

Can I actually ask you what would falsify creationism?

bonkey

Son Goku wrote:

Evolution has an explicit requirement for testing, that's a good thing.

By good you mean scientific, right?

The fact that creationism can handle both isn't a good thing.

Again...by good, you mean scientific, right?

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by Scofflaw
I sometimes wonder are you aware that evolutionary science has moved on since (Darwin).

Originally Posted by J C
That IS my point - I have also discovered that Darwin's ideas bear little or no relationship with 'Modern Evolution'…………

Scofflaw
Your discoveries never cease to amaze.

I see that BOTH you and I have discovered that Darwin’s writings bear little or no relationship to ‘Modern Evolution’……….:eek:

Rather a while ago, yes. His theory is the starting point for modern evolutionary theory. Like many starting points, it's a long way back. You may be amazed to discover that reading Darwin is encouraged for historic, rather than scientific, reasons...were you, perhaps, under some other impression?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

I posted a couple of weeks ago about how downbeat Ham looked during the opening of his creation exhibition and how he'd been making veiled references his blog to dissent and other internal rumblings.

As things have turned out, it looks like old Muttonjaw has run into serious legal trouble with CMI, the Australian organization that he broke with three years ago, swiping CMI's entire North American readership and much else.

To the accusations of dishonesty, unethical business practices that are known so well from trial and conviction of Kent Hovind, Ham's much larger organization has added juicy rumours of political backstabbing and savage infighting. And, of course, the much more mundane sidestepping of the biblical rules for behavior that he makes much of on his website.

Unbelievably, the accusations also include rumors going back years of witchcraft, excommunication and most spectacularly of all, necrophilia! Wow.

A report into these goings-on was prepared by a former New South Wales Chief Magistrate and is available here:

http://www.creationontheweb.biz/briese_committee_menu.html
http://www.creationontheweb.biz/chairmans_report.html

And the report forms the basis of the Supreme Course case brought by CMI against AiG:

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21843706-2702,00.html?from=public_rss

The Australian wrote:

The Brisbane-based Creation Ministries International has filed a lawsuit in Queensland's Supreme Court against Mr Ham and his Kentucky-based Answers in Genesis ministry seeking damages and accusing him of deceptive conduct in his dealings with the Australian organisation. [...]"The report recommends that if CMI is to fulfil its fiduciary responsibilities to protect and safeguard the Australian ministry, CMI, and have a recalcitrant Answers in Genesis-USA brought to account for the serious wrongs it has committed," he said, "CMI has no option left except to bring AiG-USA before the secular courts, the 'powers that be ordained by God' under Romans 13."

Hope you've all got a big supply of popcorn ready for this one!

Son Goku

bonkey wrote:

By good you mean scientific, right?



Again...by good, you mean scientific, right?

Yeah pretty much. Although more so "total necessary to be scientific in the first place".

J C

Son Goiku
You just made creationism's unfalsifiability out to be a strength. Evolution has an explicit requirement for testing, that's a good thing. The fact that creationism can handle both isn't a good thing.

Can I actually ask you what would falsify creationism?

But my point is that because Evolution needs 'long ages' and Creationism can 'live with' either 'long ages' or recent Creation......
......... Creationists can therefore make an objective judgement on the age of the Earth..........

......while, the Evolutionists need for long timescales may make them somewhat less objective in their assessment of the overwhelming evidence AGAINST an old Earth!!!!:D

Because Creationism is the polar opposite of Materialistic Evolutionism, there are as many ways of falsifying Creation as there are of falsifying Evolution!!!!

What supports/proves Creation will falsify Materialistic Evolution – and visa versa!!!!:D


Son Goku
Evolution has an explicit requirement for testing, that's a good thing

……and every time Evolution is scientifically tested it collapses in the face of the evidence and logic that is against it……..

…….and that's a good thing also, I suppose!!!!!:D


Bonkey
By good you mean scientific, right?

Yes bonkey, by 'good' I do mean that Evolution has been SCIENTIFICALLY falsified !!!:D


Scofflaw
You may be amazed to discover that reading Darwin is encouraged for historic, rather than scientific reasons

No I am not at all amazed, as I have already said, Darwin (and his ACTUAL ideas) have been used as a mere 'flag of convenience' by Evolutionists for years………

……and because his SCIENTIFIC ideas and observations almost perfectly dovetail with modern Baraminology……..

………….I think that it would indeed be remiss of Creationists not to honour Darwin’s contribution to our understanding of the Post-Fall Evolution, Variation and Speciation of Created Kinds........
.......and my suggestion of a ‘Darwin Medal’ as the prize for ‘Excellence in Baraminology Research’ would indeed be a fitting gesture !!!:D

BTW do any of the Evolutionists on the thread have any suggestions for a leading Evolutionist who might present such a Medal??


Robin
Hope you've all got a big supply of popcorn ready for this one!

I have no personal involvement with either party to this dispute, other than as a subscriber to BOTH of their excellent magazines.
Christians do not take pleasure in the problems of others, and this internecine dispute seems to be particularly unfortunate.
In any event, this case is now sub judice and undoubtedly, in the end, justice will be done.

Could I also remind you that this issue doesn’t have any bearing on the fact that Evolution has been scientifically demolished on this thread …….

…….and no evidence has been provided for it’s scientific validity!!!!:D

......so hold the Popcorn, and the Champagne, until you have first rehabilitated Evolution on this thread!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

What supports/proves Creation will falsify Materialistic Evolution – and visa versa!!!!:D

An entirely untenable position, based, as ever, on a total misunderstanding of the operation of science. You are thinking of legal cases, perhaps.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
You may be amazed to discover that reading Darwin is encouraged for historic, rather than scientific reasons

No I am not at all amazed, as I have already said, Darwin (and his ACTUAL ideas) have been used as a mere 'flag of convenience' by Evolutionists for years………

……and because his SCIENTIFIC ideas and observations almost perfectly dovetail with modern Baraminology……..

………….I think that it would indeed be remiss of Creationists not to honour Darwin’s contribution to our understanding of the Post-Fall Evolution, Variation and Speciation of Created Kinds........
.......and my suggestion of a ‘Darwin Medal’ as the prize for ‘Excellence in Baraminology Research’ would indeed be a fitting gesture !!!:D

Hmm. Yes, I rather thought you might be going in this direction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Evolution may PREDICT many things – however, FINDING these transitional species is another matter entirely!!!:eek:

So if they found the fossils that they originally predicted then that would demonstrate that the modern theory of neo-darwinian evolution to be quite accurate, wouldn't it

Careful JC, you are in danger of demonstrating yourself wrong (yet again) :rolleyes:

bonkey

J C wrote:

Bonkey
By good you mean scientific, right?

Yes bonkey, by 'good' I do mean that Evolution has been SCIENTIFICALLY falsified !!!:D

I wasn't talking to you.

That I quoted someone else should have been a clue as to whom the comment was directed towards.

Of course, its hardly surprising to see you ignore evidence in favour of misinterpreting a topic to suit yourself and to give you the opportunity to frace us with some additional smilies.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
What supports/proves Creation will falsify Materialistic Evolution – and visa versa

Scofflaw
An entirely untenable position, based, as ever, on a total misunderstanding of the operation of science. You are thinking of legal cases, perhaps

....but I AM thinking of BOTH Science and Law, BOTH of which depend upon the production of EVIDENCE and the application of LOGIC!!!!:eek:

….and because Creationism is the polar opposite of Materialistic Evolutionism, there are as many ways of falsifying Creation as there are of falsifying Evolution!!!!

…and therefore BOTH Creation and Evolution ARE amenable to Scientific investigation and evaluation!!!:D

…..and so far, all of the evidence and logic on this thread is in favour of Creation and against Materialistic Evolution!!!:)


Originally Posted by J C
………….I think that it would indeed be remiss of Creationists not to honour Darwin’s contribution to our understanding of the Post-Fall Evolution, Variation and Speciation of Created Kinds........
.......and my suggestion of a ‘Darwin Medal’ as the prize for ‘Excellence in Baraminology Research’ would indeed be a fitting gesture !!!

.....BTW do any of the Evolutionists on the thread have any suggestions for a leading Evolutionist who might present such a Medal??


Scofflaw
Hmm. Yes, I rather thought you might be going in this direction

…and do YOU have any suggestions for a leading Evolutionist who might present such a Medal??


Bonkey
I wasn't talking to you.

OK…..but I was talking to YOU!!!:D

bonkey

J C wrote:

OK…..but I was talking to YOU!!!:D

Now if only you had something to say, we could have a discussion.

bonkey

J C wrote:

….and because Creationism is the polar opposite of Materialistic Evolutionism, there are as many ways of falsifying Creation as there are of falsifying Evolution!!!!

Name one.

Show that you have something to say.

Name one way of falsifying this Creationism that you insist is scientific in nature.

robindch

JC wrote:

I have no personal involvement with either party to this dispute, other than as a subscriber to BOTH of their excellent magazines. Christians do not take pleasure in the problems of others, and this internecine dispute seems to be particularly unfortunate.

I don't take pleasure in the misfortunes of others either, when a misfortune is accidental.

In this case, it certainly isn't. CMI and AIG have made large amounts of money by plying the innocent, the gullible, and the stupid with extravagantly deceitful rubbish. And so, in the race to be the world's biggest pamphleteer in the cash-rich creationist marketplace -- nice to see you doing your part, JC! -- it seems that CMI and AIG have declared turf-war on each other, publicly, and now have to go crying to the courts to get them to sort it out. No doubt, it'll be amusing to see not one, but two groups of creationists forced, under threat of perjury, to tell the truth -- something they failed to manage in Dover!

I await with interest, and my popcorn, to see the two wheezing roadshows turn up outside the court in Sydney or wherever, stovepipe hats and pitchforks in hand, staring at the cars, the metalled roads, the tall buildings and the planes flying overhead.

J C

bonkey
Name one way of falsifying this Creationism that you insist is scientific in nature.

Because Creationism is the polar opposite of Materialistic Evolutionism, there are as many ways of falsifying Creation as there are of falsifying Evolution!!!!

……just name ONE way of falsifying Evolution and then construct an opposite statement…..
……… and VOILA, you have a way of falsifying Creation!!!!!:eek:

Unfortunately, on this thread, all of the evidence is supporting Creation and falsifying Evolution!!!:)

BTW, could you suggest an eminent Evolutionist to present the ‘Darwin Medal’ for ‘Excellence in Baraminology Research’???!!!!!

bonkey

J C wrote:

bonkey
Name one way of falsifying this Creationism that you insist is scientific in nature.

Because Creationism is the polar opposite of Materialistic Evolutionism, there are as many ways of falsifying Creation as there are of falsifying Evolution!!!!

Yes. You've said that already. Repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

……just name ONE way of falsifying Evolution and then construct an opposite statement…..
……… and VOILA, you have a way of falsifying Creation!!!!!:eek:

I see.

Evolution predicted the existence of DNA. Evolution would be falsified by showing that DNA does not play a role in how a generation is derived from the previous, and that no mechanism does. That there is not imperfect transfer of information, that there is not a mix-and-match between the information sets of male and female.

The opposite of this would be that if we can show that DNA does play a role in generational progression, that it is not imperfect, or that it does not mix-and-match information....this would show that Creationism is false.

So, we can conclude Creationism has already been falsified.

Excellent. I'm glad we cleared that up.

Unfortunately, on this thread, all of the evidence is supporting Creation and falsifying Evolution!!!:)

JC, JC, JC.

I thought we could have a conversation, but instead you simply persist with your transparent technique of "if I say it often enough, it will become true".

You're still talking, but you're still not saying anything.

mossieh

JC,

i saw this and thought of you.

http://www.boingboing.net/200706181605.jpg

You're welcome.

Asiaprod

mossieh wrote:

JC,

i saw this and thought of you.

http://www.boingboing.net/200706181605.jpg

You're welcome.

Amazing, I saw that today and had the same urge.

J C

bonkey wrote:

Now if only you had something to say, we could have a discussion.

Come back to me when you are prepared to listen - and we will discuss your Salvation!!

Originally Posted by J C
……just name ONE way of falsifying Evolution and then construct an opposite statement…..
……… and VOILA, you have a way of falsifying Creation!!!!!

bonkey
Evolution predicted the existence of DNA.

Creation Science ALSO predicted the existence of DNA!!!:D


bonkey
Evolution would be falsified by showing that DNA does not play a role in how a generation is derived from the previous, and that no mechanism does. That there is not imperfect transfer of information, that there is not a mix-and-match between the information sets of male and female.

The existence of the enormous levels of Complex Specified Information in DNA actually falsifies Spontaneous Evolution.:D

The ‘Imperfect transfer of information’ of which you speak is 99.99999% PERFECT and the 'mix and match' between male and female can only be explained by Direct Creation.

BTW, did you know that Evolutionists don't know the first thing about SEX???!!

.....and the origin of the male and female gender is still very much a MYSTERY to Evolutionists.

For example, an article in New Scientist (180/2424: pp 44-47,6 December 2003) said “the (origin of sex) is one of the most intractable problems in (Evolutionary) Biology. Over 30 different theories have been suggested for solving it ……but most have little evidence to support them and none has yet provided a satisfactory answer”

So there you have it – the Evolutionists have as many IDEAS about sex as the ‘Kama Sutra’ – but NONE of them actually work!!!:eek:

......and unfortunately, 'Viagra' won't solve the 'intellectual impotence' of the Evolutionists about sex, either....
......only a good dose of Creation Science will do the trick!!!;)

In theory, when it comes to sex, there may be no difference between Evolutionists and Creationists, -- but in practice, there IS!!!!!!

……and so, if you want a ‘Sexpert’ – consult a Creation Scientist!!!!:D

....or better still read the 'manufacturers instructions' in the Bible .....
......and FOLLOW them!!!!:D

bonkey
you simply persist with your transparent technique of "if I say it often enough, it will become true".

The truth of my statements comes from their demonstrable veracity – and NOT their repetition.

The reason for my repetition is your failure to understand what I have already said about these matters!!!!:)


mossieh
JC,
I saw this and thought of you.
http://www.boingboing.net/200706181605.jpg

Yes indeed Jesus Christ also Created the Dinosaurs!!!!!:D


Asiaprod
Amazing, I saw that today and had the same urge.

So, Great Minds DO think alike!!!!:D


BTW I came across the following site and I thought of you.......

http://www.gotquestions.org/
......this site will answer all of your questions on God, the Bible, Creationism and Prophecy.....
......actually just about everything that this thread set out to explain!!!!!:)

.....and the important question of how Creationism and Evolution impacts how a person views the world is answered here:-
http://www.gotquestions.org/questweek.html

Sapien

J C wrote:

So there you have it – the Evolutionists have as many IDEAS about sex as the ‘Karma Sutra’...

Kama Sutra.

J C

Sapien wrote:

Kama Sutra.

Ooops, I mixed my Karma up with my Kama!!!!!:o

bonkey

J C wrote:

bonkey
Evolution predicted the existence of DNA.

Creation Science ALSO predicted the existence of DNA!!!:D

So then your claim that the opposite of a falsification of Evolution would be a falsification of Creation Science is wrong.

So we're back to the fact that you've yet to provide a single way Creation Science can be falsified.

The truth of my statements comes from their demonstrable veracity – and NOT their repetition.

As I've just shown, JC, your statements are far from true and are, in fact, demonstrably false.

You've contradicted your own claims regarding what would constitute a falsification of Creation Science.....but have repeated the claim that it is true in the same post.