The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

DerKaiser wrote:

Cuckoo!!!!!
It's all a bit science fictiony isn't it, explain dinosaur bones and fossils, and if you say "God put them their to test our faith", I'll find you.................

......and Cuckoo to you too!!!:D

.......anyway, Creation Science DOESN'T say that God put Dinosaur fossils there "to test our faith". Creation Science has established that several Dinosaurs were WARM BLOODED Mammals and they were on Earth within the last few thousand years - a fact borne out by the discovery of intact soft tissue present in the partially fossilised remains of a T Rex which was recently unearthed!!!

The only faith being tested by Dinousaur fossils is the Evolutionist belief that Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago and that they were all REPTILES (because Mammals supposedly hadn't 'evolved' yet)!!!!!:D

DerKaiser wrote:

Do you respect Scientology?

That's crazy too

I do not believe in Scientology but I respect the freedom of others to do so.

.......and you too have every right to be WRONG!!!!:D

jonny72

Gotta love the way creationism, while technically and legally not a science, hijacks random scientific discoveries that suit their argument and disregards any other.

Do plate tectonics support creationism or not? if so include it, if not disregard..

Next scientific theory..

And so on and so forth..

Oh sorry I forgot my eternally happy love of god christian smiley face

Because as a normal human being when I argue or debate something I feel passionately about I just feel sooo happy and full of joy.

Now accept my sarcastic post with open arms.. yeah that feels good doesn't it..

I would like to point out I am currently patching a few holes in the theory of how everything was created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unfortunately that million year old human tooth discovery really is turning into a big thorn in my side, I need to figure out a way to disregard carbon dating, but I hear the creationists are well advanced in their studies of "ALL GEOLOGY IS WRONG, IT JUST IS OKAY".. so I am sure they can help me out here..

Son Goku

J C wrote:

The chemical/physical structures in silica glass are extremely simple and STATIC in comparison!!!!:D

Eh,... do you know what silica glass is?

jonny72

Now my creation theory could centre around three major things..

The Flying Spaghetti Monster creating everything
The great gravy flood
Huge 'disturbances'

and these could be used to answer just about anything..

Example

Question: How would you explain that scientists are now proposing that Mars once contained a wetter climate?
(The scientific answer would be very long, complicated, and easy to pick holes in)

My answer: The great gravy flood didn't only affect Earth, it affected other planets too, like Mars.

There you have it.. my answer is easier to understand, more straightforward and harder to pick holes in.

I can of course (like a politician) adjust my 'theories', sorry, 'scientific theories' to adapt to any challenges that arise from real science. If I make a mistake that leads me down a dead end, then one of my colleagues, of which there are many, will certainly come up with a semi-good argument/rebuke/retort which can later be 'accepted' into my creation theory until a better one comes along (my own 'bad' one being forgotten of course, its a trial and error thing really).

Now some people would have a problem believing this crazzzy fantastical idea that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything, and I don't blame them, it does sound pretty whacky, but consider this, I have a friend who goes bowling alot and he has a 'lucky' top that he wears everytime he goes to the bowling alley. This guy actually really believes this jumper is some kind of magical jumper that gives him luck at bowling, how crazy is that? yet so many of us attach these strange magical properties to objects and even stranger is the fact that we actually believe in these magical properties!

Even the most cynical and intelligent of us can have a totally superstitious, nonsense-believing side.

Hopefully, if people buy my story of the Flying Spaghetti Monster creating everything, hand it down to their kids, and they hand it down to their kids, and so on down the generations, then it will become ingrained in them, it will become real to them, and they will use all their intelligence to defend this 'scientific theory'... and so it will begin...

2Scoops

J C wrote:

Are these your ONLY / BEST evidence in favour of Evolution then???

Allow me to clear up your confusion: my comments had nothing to do with evolution! You seem a little obsessed with it - perhaps in the absence of evidence for creationism, you are considering 'jumping ship' and can't stop thinking about evolution all the time:D Ironically, they appear to be YOUR best evidence in favour of creationism:rolleyes:

Frankly, the evolution aspect of this 'debate' has concluded. Your arguments have been found wanting and have been soundly defeated on matters scientific and theological. Not even your fellow creationists are backing you up.

My comments were aimed at finding out if you can defend the wild speculation you frequently post, since you ignored my initial request a few weeks ago - a tactic common to your responses to many posters here. I took two of the most bizarre examples I could remember from recent times and hit the 'POST' button

J C wrote:

The FACT is that the menopause DOES remove the burden of child-bearing and child rearing from older women.
The FACT is that because of the Menopause, most children reach adulthood before their mothers die of old age.

And yet that God in His divine providence 'created' menopause for exactly these reasons is not FACT, which is my point entirely. It is not mentioned in the Bible. You made it up because it sounded plausible (to you at least). That is called speculation, opinion or, at worst, BS. Furthermore, you have previously stated that menopause was brought about by the Fall, not God - a bit like viruses perhaps? Who (or what) exactly created the menopause and viruses?

J C wrote:

I don’t think there are any Doctrines of the Church infringed by the above obvious conclusions – which are therefore NOT heretical concepts.:)

There is a big difference between something supporting the Biblical accounts of Creation and something not directly contradicting it. Here, you are (willfully?) obfuscating the issue. In any case, the Bible does not support that God invented the menopause for the reasons you suggested. Heresy does not even come into it.

J C wrote:

Viruses may have come about by the processes triggered at the time of the Fall judgement and/or by the actions of post Fall Humanity which may also have assisted their emergence and establishment.

Evolution?? You heard it here first folks, J C is one of us

J C wrote:

Once again, I don’t think that any Doctrines of the Church are infringed by the above obvious conclusions in relation to viruses and my views in relation to viruses are therefore NOT heretical either.:)

Neither are the doctrines supported by these conclusions. Neither do these conclusions support the doctrines. Logic is a wonderful thing:)

J C wrote:

...and I’m glad that we BOTH (theologically and scientifically) agree that “viruses were not originally created by God.”!!!!:D

It appears we both agree that they came about by the process of evolution

J C wrote:

Read all that I have written and hopefully you will be further reassured.

I am reassured that you make things up, call them 'obvious conclusions,' then state that they support the Biblical account of Creation when they do nothing of the sort. Nothing wrong with that as such, but it would be nice if you were a little more self-aware.

Be well my fellow evolutionist:D

2Scoops OUT!

DerKaiser

Quote by JC:
......and Cuckoo to you too!!!

.......anyway, Creation Science DOESN'T say that God put Dinosaur fossils there "to test our faith". Creation Science has established that several Dinosaurs were WARM BLOODED Mammals and they were on Earth within the last few thousand years - a fact borne out by the discovery of intact soft tissue present in the partially fossilised remains of a T Rex which was recently unearthed!!!

The only faith being tested by Dinousaur fossils is the Evolutionist belief that Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago and that they were all REPTILES (because Mammals supposedly hadn't 'evolved' yet)!!!!!


I do not believe in Scientology but I respect the freedom of others to do so.

Just like you, the Scientologists have every right to be WRONG!!!!



I've never heard this before, where is your proof? As far a s I'm aware, and I'm not a palaeontologist, the last studies on T-Rexs show them to have all the hallmarks of a reptillian species that lived 75 million years ago, this is the universal idea of the T-Rex, what about crocodiles, the ancestors of which came from a lot futher back, they evolved into the finished article today, but what does creationist science say about birds, where did they come from, or do you agree, like I do with the Darwinists that they are feathered reptiles after millions of years of evolution? The church used to burn scientists for saying what they regarded to be "crazy things", now christs' scientists are saying a lot of "crazy things" to stop you believing in what that nasty Charles Darwin said.

And as for being wrong,

My brain tells me I'm right, your faith tells you you're right.

That's a no-brainer.

Red Hand

J C wrote:

......and Cuckoo to you too!!!:D

.......anyway, Creation Science DOESN'T say that God put Dinosaur fossils there "to test our faith". Creation Science has established that several Dinosaurs were WARM BLOODED Mammals and they were on Earth within the last few thousand years - a fact borne out by the discovery of intact soft tissue present in the partially fossilised remains of a T Rex which was recently unearthed!!!

Good [Insert name of Deity here]! Could we have a link to this mammalian T Rex?

I'm just thinking that if T Rex was a warm blooded mammal, then why were it's arms constructed so as to be too short to breast-feed it's young?

It is generally accepted among scientists that many dinosaurs were warm-blooded, but they weren't mammals. As I recall, mammals have seven bones in their neck, have mammary glands, and most have hair to some degree, and not feathers.

The only faith being tested by Dinousaur fossils is the Evolutionist belief that Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago and that they were all REPTILES (because Mammals supposedly hadn't 'evolved' yet)!!!!!:D

There were many mammals around in the age of the dinosaurs. Thousands of mammalian teeth have been found for instance. It's just that their niche in the food chain back then was more close to the ground (literally) and not as spectacular as, say, a Tyrannosaur.

pH

DerKaiser wrote:

I've never heard this before, where is your proof?

I've been over this at some length with J C before.

His 'proof' it turns out is :

- Redefine what a mammal is
(Mammals are all creatures with warm blood*)

- Find that there is some scientific evidence and speculation that some dinosaurs may fit his new definition of mammal.
(for example) http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000422/fob1.asp

- Mislead us about who's doing this work
Creation Science has established that several Dinosaurs were WARM BLOODED

- Draw his conclusion
Creation Science has established that several Dinosaurs were WARM BLOODED Mammals

* there is a slight problem with step 1 in his 'proof', which despite being pointed out to him a number of times he continues to ignore. If anyone is interested at this stage I'll merely repeat that birds have warm blood but are not mammals, and provide a link (that obviously doesn't work for J C - do you have all of wikipedia firewalled?) for those who are interested to discover for themselves what a mammal is.

Spyral

Just t oclarify before I begin, Im a catholic and I dont beleive in Evolution per se.

second creationism is whack. not by definition, I believe that God create the world/univerese whatever but not in the literal six days.

second I would also like to see a mammalian t-rex that breast fed its young.

.......anyway, Creation Science DOESN'T say that God put Dinosaur fossils there "to test our faith". Creation Science has established that several Dinosaurs were WARM BLOODED Mammals and they were on Earth within the last few thousand years - a fact borne out by the discovery of intact soft tissue present in the partially fossilised remains of a T Rex which was recently unearthed!!!

recently - what date ?

where ?

- Redefine what a mammal is
(Mammals are all creatures with warm blood*)

- Find that there is some scientific evidence and speculation that some dinosaurs may fit his new definition of mammal.
(for example) http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000422/fob1.asp

- Mislead us about who's doing this work
Creation Science has established that several Dinosaurs were WARM BLOODED

- Draw his conclusion
Creation Science has established that several Dinosaurs were WARM BLOODED Mammals

That is typical creationist logic, and Im sad to say Im not surprised

bonkey

pH wrote:

(that obviously doesn't work for J C - do you have all of wikipedia firewalled?)

JC most certainly cannot argue that he has wikipedia firewalled, given his verbatim regurgitation of large quantities of material from it when he was pretending some time ago to be conversant in quantum theory.

robindch

Spyral wrote:

Im a catholic and I dont beleive in Evolution per se.

What part(s) exactly of modern biology do you believe is/are wrong?

bonkey

robindch wrote:

What part(s) exactly of modern biology do you believe is/are wrong?

You forgot the important part of the question...

...and why

Acid_Violet

I like you JC, your hilarious opinions really brighten up my day

J C wrote:

Acid Violet
Like the one about all the animals and humans in the world coming from two parents?

Indeed all animals and Humans ARE produced from the mating of two parents…….

Lool, you're wrong on both interpretive and misinterpretive viewpoints.

Interpretive; we are NOT ALL DIRECT PRODUCTS of the same two parents. That would lead to awful genetic deformities and diseases etc., hence why christianity wouldn't let you get it on with yo sista!

Misinterpretive; Kiddies being grown in test-tubes.

…….and I have yet to see muck spontaneously morphing into ANYTHING.......... or dead things becoming ALIVE………….as the Evolutionist ‘old wives tales’ would have us believe!!!:)

Google 'single-celled organisms'.

You'd have more success teaching men to breastfeed.

.....another 'gem' from the 'font of Evolutionist wisdom' no doubt!!!:D

......but not a great nutrition strategy!!!:D

'Tis a gem, I was saying to Wicknight not to waste his time talking to you because you're not worth it. And on that note I depart.

bonkey

Acid_Violet wrote:

Misinterpretive; Kiddies being grown in test-tubes.

Bad example. The DNA for children "grown in test-tubes" comes from two parents.

Parthenogenetic reproduction, on the other hand, would be a good example (if we don't limit ourselves to species)

Zombrex

Spyral wrote:

Just t oclarify before I begin, Im a catholic and I dont beleive in Evolution per se.

second creationism is whack. not by definition,

This is a point that is often ignored by Creationists, the fact that irrespective of evolution, Creationism does not work as science.

Creationists such as JC spend so much time fighting evolution they seem to forget this fact, that their own theories are nonsense.

Spyral

Creationists such as JC spend so much time fighting evolution they seem to forget this fact, that their own theories are nonsense.

that's what bugs me

and the parts of evolution i dont agree with are single cell = fish = apes =humans thing. I agree with MRSA though

Acid_Violet

bonkey wrote:

Bad example. The DNA for children "grown in test-tubes" comes from two parents.

Parthenogenetic reproduction, on the other hand, would be a good example (if we don't limit ourselves to species)

Yeah, just copped that afterwards, whoops.

The Mad Hatter

Acid_Violet wrote:

Yeah, just copped that afterwards, whoops.

Asexual reproduction in animals is a bit more in the right field, though.

Spyral wrote:

that's what bugs me

and the parts of evolution i dont agree with are single cell = fish = apes =humans thing. I agree with MRSA though

You seem to be missing how much goes on in your '='s, though.

Son Goku

Spyral wrote:

that's what bugs me

and the parts of evolution i dont agree with are single cell = fish = apes =humans thing. I agree with MRSA though

Well it happened, the evidence says so. It's like disgreeing with the existence of Sedna.

The Mad Hatter

Son Goku wrote:

Well it happened, the evidence says so. It's like disgreeing with the existence of Sedna.

?

(Yes, I'm quite sure you're referring to the planetoid...)

Spyral

evolution is just a theory

Son Goku

Spyral wrote:

evolution is just a theory

Computing is just a theory, yet somehow your post is up on these forums. Theory, in science, means something which has been verified. Evolution is correct, if you think it isn't you're sticking your head in the sand. Although I suspect you're just messing.

GuanYin

I'm not sure which is more farcical. JC's take on evolution or Mrs Garrison's in South Park:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edfnna3nxuI

Sangre

evolution is just a theory

Gravity is also JUST a theory but I doubt you're going to jump off a building anytime soon.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

I'm not sure which is more farcical. JC's take on evolution or Mrs Garrison's in South Park:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edfnna3nxuI

"Then it had butt sex with a squirrel"

yup, that sounds like JC's understanding of Neo-Darwin Biological Evolution. I would imagine that JC is as trained in science as Mr/Mrs Garrison

Zombrex

Spyral wrote:

evolution is just a theory

Well firstly as everyone has pointed out, everything in science is "just" a theory, since a theory simply means a conceptual model of what we believe is happening in reality. In science a theory is the main concept people work with, it is a model of what science understands to be taking place.

But if you mean that evolution is just a concept that has never been observed to take place in reality, that again is incorrect. Evolution has been observed to take place.

In fact most of modern medicine is based on evolutionary understand, and things like anti-biotic resistant strains of disease become resistant in the first place due to evolution. Understanding how this happens is vital to figuring out ways to stop it happening. Needless to say Creationism provides no answers to this since they teach that disease is a consequence of Gods will and the Fall of man kind. Not very helpful when you have a child or a soldier dying due to a super bug.

While nearly all creationists accept that "micro-evolution" takes place (since they have to, the evidence is so overwhelming) they still refuse to accept "macro-evolution", (macro and micro evolution are not generally turns used by scientists themselves, since from a biological point of view it is all the same system) defined as dramatic changes in species in general due to smaller generational changes in individual organisms. This has also been observed, yet Creationists refuse to accept these observations. Put simply they have to continue to refuse to accept it since it would be completely devastating to their insistence that evolution is not actually taking place.

Spyral

what im say is that its not been proved. there is some evidence, but no conclusive proof

Computing is just a theory, yet somehow your post is up on these forums. Theory, in science, means something which has been verified. Evolution is correct, if you think it isn't you're sticking your head in the sand. Although I suspect you're just messing.

robindch

Spyral wrote:

what im say is that its not been proved. there is some evidence, but no conclusive proof

In terms of hard facts, evolution is supported by as much evidence as supports the existence of gravity, electricity or the sun and is about as likely to be shown to be false as any of those -- ie, there are hundreds of lines of direct supporting evidence to suggest that it is real, and none which suggest that it is not.

"Proofs" exist in maths, not in descriptive theories like evolution, so conclusive proof of evolution in the mathematical sense of 'proof' will never exist. Theories can however, be falsified and 150 years of examination have failed to disprove it which strongly suggests that it's probably pretty close to what's actually happening.

Son Goku

Spyral wrote:

what im say is that its not been proved. there is some evidence, but no conclusive proof

Yes, there is. I'm not going to get into the Popperian stuff, evolution is stringently proven to standards that far exceed inconclusive.

It has been proved, just as much as gravity has been proved. No need to mince words, it is as definite as anything else in science. You're simply saying it's inconclusive because you don't want it to be true.

Zombrex

Spyral wrote:

what im say is that its not been proved. there is some evidence, but no conclusive proof

Again, it has been as "proven" as anything else in science. You can watch evolution happening in a lab. That is quite compelling.

More compelling is that the evolutionary models and theories work at predicting things. Biologists have, on numerous occasions, predicted using evolutionary models what an animal should look like before the fossil of the animals was actually discovered.

If the evolutionary model is completely wrong this shouldn't happen. Prediction is one of the corner stones of science. If your model can accurately predict something, over and over, you know you are on to something solid.