The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

bonkey

Medin wrote:

I tell you what - what you just said is like saying "weeeelll, I'll write 2 version of a simple program, one will work fine and the other one will crash the system, the only difference will be 1 line of code among 1,000,000 lines of code (ok, not THAT simple since 1million lines of non-comment code is still a hard one to produce!!!).

No, its not like saying that at all.

You, on the other hand, are still demonstrating taht you understand less and less about evolution (or are doing a good-fisted attempt at pretending same).

So what you said about us being different than other species doesn't hold much water not even a few drops.

From a scientific perspective, yes it does. From a non-scientific perspective...well...if you discard science you can claim any old rubbish is valid.

Tar.Aldarion

Medin - how do humans, which were once lactose intolerant, overcome this?
Why does our appendix no longer serve a function after we stopped eating grasses etc?

mossieh

Medin, it's bad form to turn up at a party empty-handed. I'm not being smart, you need to at least have a basic understanding of the evolutionary theory if you want to try to refute it, which you clearly don't. Is this a fishing trip on your part? Did your summer holidays just start?

Zombrex

Guys I think you are being a bit hard on Medin. He/She has said the theory doesn't make sense. Yes it is clear that he/she doesn't quite understand what the theory says in the first place, but I think we should at least try to explain it a bit before we start shutting him/her down.

The issues Medin has with what he/she things evolution says seem to be quite common in wider culture, I think it would be interesting to understand where this false idea of what evolution is is actually coming from.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

Guys I think you are being a bit hard on Medin. He/She has said the theory doesn't make sense. Yes it is clear that he/she doesn't quite understand what the theory says in the first place, but I think we should at least try to explain it a bit before we start shutting him/her down.

Surely the first step is to recognise that "I don't understand what it says" needs to be completely seperated from "what it says doesn't make sense".

You have a point, though, in that this distinction can (and probably should) be made less aggressively.

I think it would be interesting to understand where this false idea of what evolution is is actually coming from.

It would be fascinating, I agree.

mossieh

Wicknight wrote:

Guys I think you are being a bit hard on Medin. He/She has said the theory doesn't make sense. Yes it is clear that he/she doesn't quite understand what the theory says in the first place, but I think we should at least try to explain it a bit before we start shutting him/her down.

The issues Medin has with what he/she things evolution says seem to be quite common in wider culture, I think it would be interesting to understand where this false idea of what evolution is is actually coming from.

Bonkey, Wicknight, your politeness is commendable but in fairness, this thread (in it's entirety, if people take the time to read it) contains some of the most detailed explanations of the theory that you're likely to find outside of a thesis on it. I don't think Medin has a false idea of Evolution, I think he/she has zero idea of it. That in itself is fair enough but it certainly does not entitle them to condescendingly rubbish it.

Medin, less of this: :rolleyes: , this would be more appropriate maybe:

Medin

DapperGent wrote:

This makes no sense.

Like evolution makes no sense, rite? :rolleyes:
We're talking coulds or fog?

Medin

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Medin - how do humans, which were once lactose intolerant, overcome this?
Why does our appendix no longer serve a function after we stopped eating grasses etc?

I wouldn't know about lactose TBH, not my field, my I understand that you try to handle the heat of > 45 celsius every day for i.e. 10 years, ul either die or get used to it.

Medin

mossieh wrote:

Medin, it's bad form to turn up at a party empty-handed. I'm not being smart, you need to at least have a basic understanding of the evolutionary theory if you want to try to refute it, which you clearly don't. Is this a fishing trip on your part? Did your summer holidays just start?

Kinda they did. The point is, let's say I know nothing about evolution, and here you have some guys who maybe feel homo this & homo that is their new family. They eat, drink, sweat, ... evolution, and yet they are unable to give any proofs for it nor they can prove that man was not created but homo-neandertaled or whatever.

See my point? I need to prove nothing - but evolutionists do, yet they are proving nothing. So how about some serious proof from their side for a change, so I can give it a thought?

mossieh

Medin wrote:

I need to prove nothing - but evolutionists do, yet they are proving nothing. So how about some serious proof from their side for a change, so I can give it a thought?

Why do they need to prove it? To convince you? Proponents of evolution have no more need to prove it than christians do their faith. You can either take it or leave it. If you have an enquiring mind you might want to listen to the evidence and look at the models that are put forward and then make up your mind. Reading this thread would be a good start. - on that note, it is the normal practise to read a thread before you offer your two cents, I realise 300ish pages is a lot to read but even a skim of the thread would leave you better informed than you are now.

Medin

mossieh wrote:

Why do they need to prove it? To convince you? Proponents of evolution have no more need to prove it than christians do their faith. You can either take it or leave it. If you have an enquiring mind you might want to listen to the evidence and look at the models that are put forward and then make up your mind. Reading this thread would be a good start. - on that note, it is the normal practise to read a thread before you offer your two cents, I realise 300ish pages is a lot to read but even a skim of the thread would leave you better informed than you are now.

They're trying to prove it, but so far, nothing serious. A summary of the famous monkey-man business would be good for a start. :rolleyes:

Pls try understand me sarcasm, it does me good when ppl think their mothers and fathers were monkeys or the like.

Zombrex

Medin wrote:

They're trying to prove it, but so far, nothing serious. A summary of the famous monkey-man business would be good for a start.

In fairness Medin, you have already been given the "proof" that you seek by posters such as myself. You simply seem to be ignoring it.

While I initially defended you because I believed you were seriously curious, your last few posts do seem to suggest that you are not serious in your requests for information. There seems to be little point in presenting you the evidence that evolution is an accurate model if you are going to simply ignore this evidence.

Splendour

Medin wrote:

If Jesus died on the cross for the reason ppl think, why we still have such a big a big mess around here? :rolleyes: Probably bigger than it ever was.

Because not everyone in the world has accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. God is waiting for the 'fulness of the Gentiles to come in'.
Some day this fallen world or 'big mess' will end and heaven and earth as we know it will pass away...



For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins." [Romans 11:25-27]

Medin

Wicknight wrote:

In fairness Medin, you have already been given the "proof" that you seek by posters such as myself. You simply seem to be ignoring it.

While I initially defended you because I believed you were seriously curious, your last few posts do seem to suggest that you are not serious in your requests for information. There seems to be little point in presenting you the evidence that evolution is an accurate model if you are going to simply ignore this evidence.

I'm serious enuff, but u gotta be serious enuff to present it. How can you expect me to be serious with no weight in my hands to weight? Only when I get something solid...

Sapien

Medin wrote:

I'm serious enuff, but u gotta be serious enuff to present it. How can you expect me to be serious with no weight in my hands to weight? Only when I get something solid...

Do you imagine that all of evolutionary biology since The Origin of Species has been conducted on internet bulletin boards? Don't you think it's a little much to ask these guys, as patient as they have proven themselves to be, to educate you from scratch in a vast and intricate field of science through nugget-sized posts?

If you were remotely interested in judging the strength of the theory of evolution by natural selection you would have made an effort to find out about it yourself. Flaunting your ignorance as a rhetorical obstacle proves nothing but your own narrowness of mind.

Zombrex

Medin wrote:

I'm serious enuff, but u gotta be serious enuff to present it.

Ok, if you are serious then what part of the previous posts that answered your questions did you not understand?

Medin wrote:

How can you expect me to be serious with no weight in my hands to weight? Only when I get something solid...

As I said, you have been given something "solid", but you haven't responded to it. In fact you appear to be ignoring it. Have you read the replies to your previous posts? Did you understand them? If there are parts that you didn't understand I would be more than happy to attempt to clarify your questions.

Splendour

The Mad Hatter wrote:

As to your 'If we evolved from "slime"' paragraph, I'm sure that God, of all people, could tell which way each molecule of slime was pointed, and which ones would eventually become the creatures whose descendents would eventually become human, and could invest them with whatever spiritual blueprint he liked.

Of course He could, t'would be a mere trifle to him; but chose not to do it that way.
He formed the world first,then animals and lastly as the pinnacle of his creation and in the likeness of himself, God made man. And man was given dominion over the animals as is still the case today.

Animals may have their own level of intelligence and indeed all species must have this to survive. Point me toward as many David Attenborough programmes as you like, not one of them will show animals having the capabilies men have.

MooseJam

The human body is an incredibly complex organism, this in itself is often used as a reason to posit creationism - Look how complex we are we must be the creation of a God, however If you think about it the opposit should be true - I mean if god created us why are we so complex, with eyes and brains and hearts etc, if God created us we wouldn't need to have working bodies we would just be alive because God said so, there would be no need for a heart - think about it eh

pH

Firstly let's get rid of this theory stuff, there are 2 ways of looking at evolution:

Firstly Evolution (THE FACT!)
The universe is 14 billion years old, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the species we see on it today are not the ones that existed over time. Hence evolution - we see through the fossil record and by analysis of DNA - evolution - over time changes in the species living on this planet. THE SPECIES LIVING ON THIS PLANET HAVE CHANGED SLOWLY OVER THE COURSE OF 4.5 BILLION YEARS - They have 'evolved'.

These are facts - if you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the sciences of physics, cosmology, biology and geology then knock yourself out, pull up a pew beside J C.

Secondly Evolution (THE THEORY)

Natural Selection (And Sexual selection etc) are theories that explain the 'facts' that life on this planet has evolved. They have been around over a 100 years and other theories such as Lamarckian evolution (that living beings acquire traits during their lifetime and pass them on) have been proven false. And this is why even though Lamarckism was wrong it's still 10 times the 'scientific' theory' that creationism/ID will ever be - because it was falsifiable.

So in the same way - if you give communion wine to a scientist they certainly will not find any evidence of Christ's blood in it. Science tells us it's still wine - and that it is still wine is a 'scientific truth' - you may believe it's Christ's blood - in the same way as you can believe that God directly created man - certainly they're both religious beliefs - but neither is the 'truth' in a scientific or real sense.

Medin

pH wrote:

Firstly let's get rid of this theory stuff, there are 2 ways of looking at evolution:

Firstly Evolution (THE FACT!)
The universe is 14 billion years old, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the species we see on it today are not the ones that existed over time. Hence evolution - we see through the fossil record and by analysis of DNA - evolution - over time changes in the species living on this planet. THE SPECIES LIVING ON THIS PLANET HAVE CHANGED SLOWLY OVER THE COURSE OF 4.5 BILLION YEARS - They have 'evolved'.

These are facts - if you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the sciences of physics, cosmology, biology and geology then knock yourself out, pull up a pew beside J C.

Secondly Evolution (THE THEORY)

Natural Selection (And Sexual selection etc) are theories that explain the 'facts' that life on this planet has evolved. They have been around over a 100 years and other theories such as Lamarckian evolution (that living beings acquire traits during their lifetime and pass them on) have been proven false. And this is why even though Lamarckism was wrong it's still 10 times the 'scientific' theory' that creationism/ID will ever be - because it was falsifiable.

So in the same way - if you give communion wine to a scientist they certainly will not find any evidence of Christ's blood in it. Science tells us it's still wine - and that it is still wine is a 'scientific truth' - you may believe it's Christ's blood - in the same way as you can believe that God directly created man - certainly they're both religious beliefs - but neither is the 'truth' in a scientific or real sense.

OK, nice to hear "facts" and "a theory". I agree with the years, we approximize of course. Now what makes you think that some species weren't created "a bit later"? "a bit" being........a few hundred million years? What makes you think they "had to evolve"? Perhaps they were dropped down to Earth from the sky, or something like it. Do evolutionists have proofs of the very 1st human? I'm not aware of such a thing, are you?

The Mad Hatter

Splendour wrote:

Of course He could, t'would be a mere trifle to him; but chose not to do it that way.
He formed the world first,then animals and lastly as the pinnacle of his creation and in the likeness of himself, God made man. And man was given dominion over the animals as is still the case today.

How do you know?

Animals may have their own level of intelligence and indeed all species must have this to survive. Point me toward as many David Attenborough programmes as you like, not one of them will show animals having the capabilies men have.

Go and watch them then

pH

Medin wrote:

OK, nice to hear "facts" and "a theory". I agree with the years, we approximize of course. Now what makes you think that some species weren't created "a bit later"? "a bit" being........a few hundreds of years?

Because there's no need for them to be created a bit later. The fossil record shows remarkable continuation for most theories.

So we see that everything on earth 'could' have evolved, has a fossil record, common DNA etc. Like I said if you want to point at something and say "No not that one, that one God created from scratch by clicking his fingers", then fine you can believe that.

What has never been found is a species that couldn't have evolved - something that starts from nowhere at a point in time, or something whith features that can be shown to be un-evolvable.

What makes you think they "had to evolve"? Perhaps they were dropped down to Earth from the sky, or something like it. Do evolutionists have proofs of the very 1st human? I'm not aware of such a thing, are you?

No one is saying they "had to evolve". Let's say you find a ham sandwich on a table, which looks to all intents and purposes that it was made by your mam. Fine, but who's to say that God didn't just make it? Saying, well I know that it could have been made by a person, but CAN YOU PROVE THAT GOD DIDN'T MAKE IT - well no, but isn't that a rather stupid question?

The Mad Hatter

Medin wrote:

OK, nice to hear "facts" and "a theory". I agree with the years, we approximize of course. Now what makes you think that some species weren't created "a bit later"? "a bit" being........a few hundreds of years? What makes you think they "had to evolve"? Perhaps they were dropped down to Earth from the sky, or something like it. Do evolutionists have proofs of the very 1st human? I'm not aware of such a thing, are you?

Well, no, and in fact I don't think there was a first human. There were things that closely resembled humans, and then, a while later, there were humans.

It's also possible that humans were just dropped out of the sky, but it's really rather unlikely.

Medin

Do you people believe that actual infinity really exists? For instance, that Universe had no beginning. If yes, can you prove it? The opposite can be done - that actual infinity cannot exist.

The Mad Hatter

Medin wrote:

Do you people believe that actual infinity really exists? For instance, that Universe had no beginning. If yes, can you prove it? The opposite can be done - that actual infinity cannot exist.

I'm not sure that it can...but in any case, what does that have to do with the argument at hand?

Medin

The Mad Hatter wrote:

I'm not sure that it can...but in any case, what does that have to do with the argument at hand?

It was just a parallel question - that's all. Maybe I wana see how evoluted mind works.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote:

Point me toward as many David Attenborough programmes as you like, not one of them will show animals having the capabilies men have.

The species in the homo genus that did have capabilities equal or close to humans, such as the Neanderthals, are extinct. But they did exist and they were intelligent (tools, community, language, just like us). How that fits into your "humans are special" framework I don't know, but it is incorrect to say that we are the only advance life form that has ever evolved on Earth.

Zombrex

Medin wrote:

Do evolutionists have proofs of the very 1st human? I'm not aware of such a thing, are you?

Even better, we have proof of what humans were before they evolved into humans (homo erectus)

Zombrex

Medin wrote:

Do you people believe that actual infinity really exists? For instance, that Universe had no beginning. If yes, can you prove it? The opposite can be done - that actual infinity cannot exist.

Do you actually understand what you are even asking?

The universe as we understand it began approx 14 billion years ago. And yes, we have "proof" of this, stuff that is far to complicated to get into now.

That is when everything we know as part of the universe, including time itself, started. What was "before" that we don't know because the fundamental laws of the universe (again including time) break down. We don't even know if "before" is the correct way to phrase it, since time itself did not exist.

Medin

Hey Wicky,

I said I agree with the numbers, read more carefully. Hey I found something for you, I'd like to hear your comment:

The design of the alveoli in our lungs is at a perfect state IF it was any different
from what it is now then we would not be able to breath at all. Therefore the alveoli cannot evolve due to evolution. It was made once and it hasn't changed.

What you say?