The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

The point is that they are all DESTRUCTIVE forces.........and destructive forces are simpler (often vastly simpler) forces..........than constructive forces!!!:D

A 'frameshift mutation' is similar to changing gears in a car......and is itself a form of tightly specified complexity.........the Nylon Bug seems to have 'changed gear' ........but with some sand in the gearbox!!!!

It is all part of the outworking of the enormous pre-existing genetic potential of all living organisms!!!!:D

No, because the mutation causes the construction of a new enzyme, and the new enzyme allows the digestion of nylon into things that are useful to the bacterium - the addition of new, useful information to the genome through mutation..

Random destruction may be easy, but disassembly into useful things is not. To use an analogy you might be slightly familiar with, it's as if a wind took a 747 to bits and turned it into lots of cars.

Do have another go.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

robindch wrote:

The occasional gem turns up from the excellent Fundies Say the Darndest Things!. This one from here, on some guy's recollection of a "stupid video":You couldn't invent this stuff.

I especially liked the 'Darwinist's Prayer':

Thank you for giving us the Origin of Species, Oh Darwin,
which tells us everything we need to know;

Thank you for protecting me from the need
to think things out for myself,

Thank you for protecting me from the need
To find things out for myself,

Thank you for protecting me from the need
to ask questions which
I don't know the answers to.

Thank you for making things simple.

And above all, Oh Darwin,
thank you for my ignorance,
for ignorance is bliss.

.......and it comes with Robin's recommendation!!!:D

........you just couldn't make it up!!!!:D :eek:

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

No, because the mutation causes the construction of a new enzyme, and the new enzyme allows the digestion of nylon into things that are useful to the bacterium - the addition of new, useful information to the genome through mutation..

Random destruction may be easy, but disassembly into useful things is not. To use an analogy you might be slightly familiar with, it's as if a wind took a 747 to bits and turned it into lots of cars.

Do have another go.

cordially,
Scofflaw

......and what do you think the chances of a 747 spontaneously producing cars is??????

......a big fat ZERO!!!!

......and ditto for the spontaneous generation of bacteria ........whether they guzzle Knickers or NOT!!!!!!:eek:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

......and what do you think the chances of a 747 spontaneously producing cars is??????

......a big fat ZERO!!!!

......and ditto for the spontaneous generation of bacteria ........whether they guzzle Knickers or NOT!!!!!!:eek:

You appear to have entirely misidentified the question, JC, which is quite amazing given we've been discussing it for a couple of pages now, and you've even managed to quote my post. Nobody asked about the 'spontaneous generation of bacteria'.

We're discussing, if you can drag yourself back to the post you quoted, a mutation - one which causes the construction of a new enzyme, which new enzyme allows the digestion of nylon into things that are useful to the bacterium - the addition of new, useful information to the genome through mutation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, you couldn't, and I couldn't, but I know someone who can...
cordially,
Scofflaw

.....are you referring to Jesus Christ and His unique ability to save you, perhaps????

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

robindch wrote:

You couldn't invent this stuff.

Well, you couldn't, and I couldn't, but I know someone who can...

.....are you referring to Jesus Christ and His unique ability to save you, perhaps????

Context, JC, context.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Originally Posted by J C
......and what do you think the chances of a 747 spontaneously producing cars is??????

......a big fat ZERO!!!!

......and ditto for the spontaneous generation of bacteria ........whether they guzzle Knickers or NOT!!!!!!

Scofflaw wrote:

We're discussing, if you can drag yourself back to the post you quoted, a mutation - one which causes the construction of a new enzyme, which new enzyme allows the digestion of nylon into things that are useful to the bacterium - the addition of new, useful information to the genome through mutation.

It is a frame shift of EXISTING INFORMATION ......something like a tractor changing gears.......and starting to do something 'new' .........like mowing hay!!!!!:D :eek:

........using it's Intelligently Designed PRE-EXISTING genetic potential!!!!:)

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......and what do you think the chances of a 747 spontaneously producing cars is??????

......a big fat ZERO!!!!

......and ditto for the spontaneous generation of bacteria ........whether they guzzle Knickers or NOT!!!!!!



It is a frame shift of EXISTING INFORMATION ......something like a tractor changing gears.......and starting to do something 'new' .........like mowing hay!!!!!:D :eek:

........using it's Intelligently Designed PRE-EXISTING genetic potential!!!!:)

It had pre-existing genetic information to digest a material that was only invented seventy years ago?

Doesn't that seem a bit...I dunno...pointless?

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

It is a frame shift of EXISTING INFORMATION ......something like a tractor changing gears.......and starting to do something 'new' .........like mowing hay!!!!!:D :eek:

........using it's Intelligently Designed PRE-EXISTING genetic potential!!!!:)

I see you have forgotten the subject under discussion. Never mind, I'll just repeat my earlier post (I see you were having memory difficulties at that stage too):

***REPEAT***

No, JC, because if you remember, this is a frameshift mutation. That means that one base pair has been added into the DNA, so that all the subsequent triplets are read differently:

TTT-GGG-CCC-TTT-AAA

could go to:

TTT-AGG-GCC-CTT-TAA

as the result of the insertion of the extra A(denosine) there. The A is entirely new, and has the knock-on effect of changing the reading of all the subsequent triplets. In this case, the new reading produces a novel enzyme that digests nylon - not very efficiently, it's true, but given the amount of nylon (tights and knickers, as you so elegantly put it) in the world, and the lack of other things digesting it, it's pretty useful.

So, to recap - mutation -> insertion of new information -> new enzyme -> evidence of the falsity of Creationist claim. Pretty straightforward, really.

Now, your counter-claims are, I think, that the DNA was designed to be read that way to produce nylon digestion when it became useful, by shifting the reading. Pity that ignores the intrusive mutation that does the work, and the fact that this is not a very good nylon-digesting enzyme, as we might expect for something arising by accident rather than design. Now it exists, natural selection will presumably refine it. Of course, the mutant bacterium remains a variant of the original - no new species here - so if you'd prefer to use that cop-out, work away.

***END REPEAT***

I'm delighted to see that you've followed my suggestions so assiduously, by the way. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in advance, the intrusive 'A' in the example above is new information, not part of the pre-existing genetic code, which rather puts paid to your claim.

Now, I rather think it's time for you to come up with a novel dodge. You've used both the ones I suggested, you've tried insane babbling, you've tried pretending that what's happening isn't, and you've tried changing the subject. I look forward with interest to your next move.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sangre

has anyone been reading the last few pages with their mouth slightly agape?

....washing machines eating knickers?

And no JC, my mouth isn't agape because i suddenly see the 'LIGHT of EVOLUTION'S ridiculous MAN TO MUCK claims'...

Scofflaw

While we're on the topic of mutations (we're on the topic of mutations, for anyone having difficulty remembering), human testes may facilitate mutations according to USC College study. Not that that would make sense in a Creationist world, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Mad Hatter wrote:

It had pre-existing genetic information to digest a material that was only invented seventy years ago? Doesn't that seem a bit...I dunno...pointless?

On the contrary, it shows the deity's infinite foresight!

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

....if you remember, this is a frameshift mutation. That means that one base pair has been added into the DNA, so that all the subsequent triplets are read differently:

TTT-GGG-CCC-TTT-AAA

could go to:

TTT-AGG-GCC-CTT-TAA

as the result of the insertion of the extra A(denosine) there. The A is entirely new, and has the knock-on effect of changing the reading of all the subsequent triplets. In this case, the new reading produces a novel enzyme that digests nylon - not very efficiently, it's true, but given the amount of nylon (tights and knickers, as you so elegantly put it) in the world, and the lack of other things digesting it, it's pretty useful.

So, to recap - mutation -> insertion of new information -> new enzyme -> evidence of the falsity of Creationist claim. Pretty straightforward, really.

I don't contest the facts......it is your erroneous interpretation of the facts that I don't accept!!!!:eek:

What we are dealing with here is genetic information of enormous complexity and sophistication, complete with auto-repair and back-up systems to maintain genetic stability.
It is akin to a very sophisticated computer programme.
Sometimes if you make a random change to a computer programme, the programme runs without any apparent difficulty, sometimes the programme crashes completely (equivalent to an unviable mutation), sometimes it continues to work, but at reduced efficiency and sometimes it starts doing 'novel' things like emboldening a line of text not previously emboldened, or repeating a particular operation twice.
If you liked the emboldened text, for example, you might not bother debugging the programme (the equivanent of NS selecting this 'useful' trait).

However, please bear in mind that the entire process is occurring within a PRE-EXISTING very sophisticated, Intelligently Designed programme.
As I have previously said, Evolution may explain the 'survival' of the fittest i.e. micro-changes / tweaking.........but it doesn't explain the 'arrival' of the fittest......i.e. the production of the incredibly complex and tightly specified systems we observe in living organisms, in the first place.:D

The other thing to note about computer programmes (and living organisms) is the fact that as the number of changes / mutations increase, so too does the likelihood of catastrophic failure.......and that is WHY Evolutionists show a (wise) reluctance to follow through on their belief in the 'powers of mutation' by exposing themselves to mutagenesis!!!:cool:

......and that ALSO is why computers and living organisms come complete with auto-repair / re-booting systems when the inevitable potentially catastrophic 'change' occurs!!!!!:D

Scofflaw wrote:

Unfortunately, as I pointed out in advance, the intrusive 'A' in the example above is new information, not part of the pre-existing genetic code, which rather puts paid to your claim.

Now, I rather think it's time for you to come up with a novel dodge. You've used both the ones I suggested, you've tried insane babbling, you've tried pretending that what's happening isn't, and you've tried changing the subject. I look forward with interest to your next move.

You're the guy with your head stuck in the sand in deep denial of the reality of God.......and the invalidity of 'Muck to Man Abiogenesis / Evolution'.

You see God designed all life with the ability to dynamically cope with the inevitable interactions and changes that occur in the environment in which we live.
At an individual level, physiological mechanisms help us to cope......for example we shiver when it gets cold and we sweat when it gets hot......
we also change our location in response to stimuli by, for example, moving to shelter when it rains or to shade when the sun starts to burn us:cool:

At a population level we adapt to changes in the environment through NS of the enormous levels of PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity within the genomes of each Kind .......and we also come with the pre-programmed ability to 'leverage' even greater diversity from our genomes through mechanisms like frame shifts!!!!!:cool:

.......and the proof that you don't REALLY believe that mutagenesis could 'move' muck to develop into Man is your (wise) reluctance to follow through on your belief in the 'powers of mutation' by exposing yourself to mutagenesis!!!:cool: :eek:

J C

Sangre wrote:

has anyone been reading the last few pages with their mouth slightly agape?

Open mouths (and eating flies) must be an occupational hazard for Evolutionists because of the 'jaw dropping' claims that they routinely make!!!:D :eek:

I feel your PAIN!!!:D

J C

robindch wrote:

On the contrary, it shows the deity's infinite foresight!

Yes, that AS WELL!!!:D

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote:

It had pre-existing genetic information to digest a material that was only invented seventy years ago?

Doesn't that seem a bit...I dunno...pointless?

........as I have ALREADY said, it is using it's Intelligently Designed PRE-EXISTING genetic potential!!!!

.......to 'produce' novel solutions to exploit / cope with the opportunities / threats presented by a continuously changing environment!!!!

......NS is like an autopilot on an aeroplane.......continuously 'trimming' it's co-ordinates and ensuring that populations adapt to changed environments........but just like an autopilot is incapable of either creating itself or the aeroplane that it 'tweaks'.......so too NS is incapable of producing the ordered specific and complex genetic information that it also 'tweaks'!!!:D

5uspect

J C wrote:

........as I have ALREADY said, it is using it's Intelligently Designed PRE-EXISTING genetic potential!!!!

.......to 'produce' novel solutions to exploit / cope with the opportunities / threats presented by a continuously changing environment!!!!

Wait a minute there. Now it's "potential" and "novel"?
I thought you said the information was "pre-existing"
Do even know what novel means?

J C I think you've just become an evolutionist...:D :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

....if you remember, this is a frameshift mutation. That means that one base pair has been added into the DNA, so that all the subsequent triplets are read differently:

TTT-GGG-CCC-TTT-AAA

could go to:

TTT-AGG-GCC-CTT-TAA

as the result of the insertion of the extra A(denosine) there. The A is entirely new, and has the knock-on effect of changing the reading of all the subsequent triplets. In this case, the new reading produces a novel enzyme that digests nylon - not very efficiently, it's true, but given the amount of nylon (tights and knickers, as you so elegantly put it) in the world, and the lack of other things digesting it, it's pretty useful.

So, to recap - mutation -> insertion of new information -> new enzyme -> evidence of the falsity of Creationist claim. Pretty straightforward, really.

I don't contest the facts......it is your erroneous interpretation of the facts that I don't accept!!!!:eek:

What we are dealing with here is genetic information of enormous complexity and sophistication, complete with auto-repair and back-up systems to maintain genetic stability.

Well, actually, we're dealing here with a straightforward genetic sequence of bases as per the above example, which has changed. The complexity, sophistication, and auto-repair mechanisms of the genome are entirely irrelevant. The genome has mutated by the addition of a letter, and the addition of that letter has changed the reading of the genome to produce a new enzyme - a clear example of a mutation producing something new and beneficial.

JC wrote:

It is akin to a very sophisticated computer programme.
Sometimes if you make a random change to a computer programme, the programme runs without any apparent difficulty, sometimes the programme crashes completely (equivalent to an unviable mutation), sometimes it continues to work, but at reduced efficiency and sometimes it starts doing 'novel' things like emboldening a line of text not previously emboldened, or repeating a particular operation twice.
If you liked the emboldened text, for example, you might not bother debugging the programme (the equivanent of NS selecting this 'useful' trait).

That's right, JC. That's called a 'beneficial mutation'. Finally!

JC wrote:

However, please bear in mind that the entire process is occurring within a PRE-EXISTING very sophisticated, Intelligently Designed programme.
As I have previously said, Evolution may explain the 'survival' of the fittest i.e. micro-changes / tweaking.........but it doesn't explain the 'arrival' of the fittest......i.e. the production of the incredibly complex and tightly specified systems we observe in living organisms, in the first place.:D

Well, obviously, we say that it does. Still, baby steps.

JC wrote:

The other thing to note about computer programmes (and living organisms) is the fact that as the number of changes / mutations increase, so too does the likelihood of catastrophic failure.......and that is WHY Evolutionists show a (wise) reluctance to follow through on their belief in the 'powers of mutation' by exposing themselves to mutagenesis!!!:cool:

Hmm. Clearly we do not fear mutagenesis as much as you might think - otherwise we 'evolutionists' would wear lead underpants (see previous link).

Actually, the vast majority of mutations are neutral (which is why we don't bother wearing lead coats). Otherwise mutations are more likely to be harmful than beneficial, so the premise behind X-men remains silly, and I don't go to Chernobyl on holidays.

JC wrote:

......and that ALSO is why computers and living organisms come complete with auto-repair / re-booting systems when the inevitable potentially catastrophic 'change' occurs!!!!!:D

Actually, organisms with 'catastrophic' mutational changes generally die without breeding. That is, if you like, the way the species repairs itself.

JC wrote:

You're the guy with your head stuck in the sand in deep denial of the reality of God.......and the invalidity of 'Muck to Man Abiogenesis / Evolution'.

I suppose I can hardly dish out impoliteness without taking it to. So noted.

JC wrote:

You see God designed all life with the ability to dynamically cope with the inevitable interactions and changes that occur in the environment in which we live.
At an individual level, physiological mechanisms help us to cope......for example we shiver when it gets cold and we sweat when it gets hot......
we also change our location in response to stimuli by, for example, moving to shelter when it rains or to shade when the sun starts to burn us:cool:

At a population level we adapt to changes in the environment through NS of the enormous levels of PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity within the genomes of each Kind .......and we also come with the pre-programmed ability to 'leverage' even greater diversity from our genomes through mechanisms like frame shifts!!!!!:cool:

OK, so now beneficial mutations are now something that allows an organism to take advantage of pre-existing information? Well, to some extent that's actually true, because a mutation without a genome would be pretty silly - however in this case it has done so by adding information that changes the meaning of some of the rest of the genome. That's only "using pre-existing genetic information" in the same sense as using all the letters from someone's essay to write a totally different one is the use of pre-existing material...

However, the rest of the genome has also changed over incredibly long periods of time, through the same mechanisms of beneficial mutations being kept, and damaging mutations disposed of - natural selection.

In this case, for example, the nylon-digesting enzyme code will be beneficial, because the bacterium can now live on a commonly found artificial material it was previously unable to eat.

However, the efficiency of the new enzyme is very low (12% of the nylon digested can be used). Further mutations, if they increase the efficiency of the enzyme, will also benefit from natural selection, and over the course of the next few centuries, nylon will become a biodegradable material!

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

5uspect wrote:

Wait a minute there. Now it's "potential" and "novel"?
I thought you said the information was "pre-existing"
Do even know what novel means?

J C I think you've just become an evolutionist...:D :rolleyes:

I have ALWAYS been an 'Evolutionist'...........initially I was a macro-Evolutionist........but today I am a Creationist........and therefore a micro-Evolutionist!!!!!:D

The base information and operating system is pre-existing AND pre-programmed by an infinite intelligence........and the information is stored and processed in such a way that it CAN and DOES produce NOVEL combinations and effects .........your good self is one such NOVEL combination of genetic information.......as indeed are the UNIQUE genomes of EVERY other organism on Earth!!!:eek:

Living organisms are like sophisticated self-reproducing, fully autonamous Intelligently Designed 'Robots' with their operating systems information stored and processed at molecular level!!!!!:D

J C

Scofflaw
Well, actually, we're dealing here with a straightforward genetic sequence of bases as per the above example, which has changed.

You seem to be incapable of 'seeing the forest from the trees'!!!!

Your statement above is so ‘reductionist’ that it completely misses the ultimate origin of the genome, in the first place.

It is akin to looking at a DVD and saying that “we're dealing here with a straightforward sequence of binary code, which has changed”.
The fact that it “changed” when it was recorded is the LEAST important observation……..the fact is that NEITHER the original blank disk NOR any of its recording or playing equipment could EVER be spontaneously produced …….and therefore they could ONLY be produced by an ultimate application of intelligence .....is the most IMPORTANT observation on HOW the DVD was PRODUCED!!!!:D

Equally, the fact that information is encoded within the DVD binary code ......is also another incontrovertible indication that both the DVD and it's binary encoded information had an intelligent source!!!

Similarly, the observation that “we're dealing here with a straightforward genetic sequence of bases ............. which has changed” is so reductionist that it is a pointless observation from an 'origins' perspective. The fact that it “changed” via a frame shift is the LEAST important observation.
The fact that the genome and it's supporting cellular components could NEVER be spontaneously produced …….and therefore could ONLY be produced by an ultimate application of intelligence is the most IMPORTANT observation on HOW the organism was ultimately PRODUCED!!!!:D


Scofflaw
The complexity, sophistication, and auto-repair mechanisms of the genome are entirely irrelevant. The genome has mutated by the addition of a letter, and the addition of that letter has changed the reading of the genome to produce a new enzyme - a clear example of a mutation producing something new and beneficial.

The enormous levels of irreducible complexity as well as the sophistication of the genetic information and auto-repair mechanisms observed in living organisms ARE very relevant in making an assessment of how the organism originated…..because such mechanisms are the ‘signature’ of intelligence in action.:cool:

……sexual reproduction CONTINUOUSLY produces traits that are “new and (often) beneficial”…..but this always occurs on the existing irreducibly complex genetic information ‘platform’!!!!:)


Scofflaw
That's right, JC. That's called a 'beneficial mutation'. Finally!

I have never said that ‘beneficial’ mutations cannot occur……..only that they are relatively RARE and they DEGRADE information…….just like the ERROR that putatively caused the computer to produce bold text…….

Such mutations are incapable of producing the computer programme in the first place…….and ditto for mutations (even the rare ‘beneficial’ ones) which are also incapable of producing living organisms, in the first place!!!!:)


Originally Posted by JC
However, please bear in mind that the entire process is occurring within a PRE-EXISTING very sophisticated, Intelligently Designed programme.
As I have previously said, Evolution may explain the 'survival' of the fittest i.e. micro-changes / tweaking.........but it doesn't explain the 'arrival' of the fittest......i.e. the production of the incredibly complex and tightly specified systems we observe in living organisms, in the first place

Scofflaw
Well, obviously, we say that it does. Still, baby steps

Unfortunately, despite your apparent optimism, we HAVEN’T moved any closer in our positions on the 'origins question' .......(by baby steps or anything else)………and our FUNDAMENTAL difference remains.:eek:

You say that a series of random ERRORS selected and sorted by NS 'moved' muck to spontaneously develop into Man …….and I say it DIDN’T …….and indeed it COULDN’T happen!!!!!!


Scofflaw
Hmm. Clearly we do not fear mutagenesis as much as you might think - otherwise we 'evolutionists' would wear lead underpants (see previous link).

Actually, the vast majority of mutations are neutral (which is why we don't bother wearing lead coats). Otherwise mutations are more likely to be harmful than beneficial, so the premise behind X-men remains silly, and I don't go to Chernobyl on holidays.

Firstly, this is a deleterious mutation.

Secondly, wearing Lead underpants wouldn't seem to affect the rate of Apert Syndrome......which appears to have a genetic, rather than an environmental basis.


Scofflaw
OK, so now beneficial mutations are now something that allows an organism to take advantage of pre-existing information? Well, to some extent that's actually true, because a mutation without a genome would be pretty silly - however in this case it has done so by adding information that changes the meaning of some of the rest of the genome. That's only "using pre-existing genetic information" in the same sense as using all the letters from someone's essay to write a totally different one is the use of pre-existing material...

Either way you need an Intelligently Designed pen or computer with which to write and you are NOT using the letters to write a different essay……you are changing ONE letter and ‘shunting’ the remainder of the sentence on by one character space………and you would need a very special Intelligently Designed language if you are going to produce meaningful information after frame shifts and other changes.:)

A frame change in the English language would render the resultant information pretty meaningless.

For example the sentence “the cat ate the fly”…..becomes …..”Rth eca tat eth efl” with just a single frame shift.

Only a person of Infinite Intelligence could create a language that retains informational integrity after frame shifts and other changes……..and that is why God is the creator of the DNA language!!!!:D


Scofflaw
However, the rest of the genome has also changed over incredibly long periods of time, through the same mechanisms of beneficial mutations being kept, and damaging mutations disposed of - natural selection.

In this case, for example, the nylon-digesting enzyme code will be beneficial, because the bacterium can now live on a commonly found artificial material it was previously unable to eat.

However, the efficiency of the new enzyme is very low (12% of the nylon digested can be used). Further mutations, if they increase the efficiency of the enzyme, will also benefit from natural selection, and over the course of the next few centuries, nylon will become a biodegradable material!

God not only Created life ………but He Created the ability within life to adapt to and exploit changes in it’s environment ………using a pre-existing operating systems base and information complement as well as an Intelligently Designed DNA language that is capable of coping with frame shifts and recombinant gene jumbling during sexual reproduction…….and all the while retaining the integrity and viability of the organism concerned!!!!:)

Lovingly,

J C:)

robindch

JC wrote:

He Created the ability within life to adapt

JC, you're entering dangerous heretical waters here. Please show me the bible verse where it says that your deity created lifeforms which are susceptible to adaption and natural selection.

robindch

Remember that story earlier in the week about that US Republican senator who was allegedly caught making gay advances in a public toilet to an undercover cop (transcript here)? The same guy who used to make lots of noise about "family values" and repeatedly voted against gay rights and same-sex marriage legislation?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6973604.stm

Turns out that he's also a creationist who was a member of a small group who tried to get a constitutional amendment through to authorize the teaching of "the creation of the earth as accepted in Judeo-Christian tradition."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:H.J.RES.297:

Looks to me like creationism is actually what's causing the breakdown in "family values"!

J C

Originally Posted by JC
He Created the ability within life to adapt

robindch wrote:

JC, you're entering dangerous heretical waters here. Please show me the bible verse where it says that your deity created lifeforms which are susceptible to adaption and natural selection.

My FULL quote reads
"God not only Created life ………but He Created the ability within life to adapt to and exploit changes in it’s environment ………using a pre-existing operating systems base and information complement as well as an Intelligently Designed DNA language that is capable of coping with frame shifts and recombinant gene jumbling during sexual reproduction…….and all the while retaining the integrity and viability of the organism concerned!!!!"

God created all lifeforms to be fruitful, and multiply, .....after their Kind.

The original Creation was good......and so there was no competition or death via 'survival of the fittest'.
However, God knew that the Fall would take place, and so He programmed the latent ability to adapt and survive into the genomes of all life at Creation.:)

The Fall brought with it the need for adaptation / survival in a hostile environment of sin, death and disease!!

This is in full conformity with observed reality and scripture!!!:D

Lovingly,
J C

J C

robindch wrote:

Remember that story earlier in the week about that US Republican senator who was allegedly caught making gay advances in a public toilet to an undercover cop (transcript here)? The same guy who used to make lots of noise about "family values" and repeatedly voted against gay rights and same-sex marriage legislation?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6973604.stm

Turns out that he's also a creationist who was a member of a small group who tried to get a constitutional amendment through to authorize the teaching of "the creation of the earth as accepted in Judeo-Christian tradition."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:H.J.RES.297:

Looks to me like creationism is actually what's causing the breakdown in "family values"!

This PARTICULAR case may be sub judice

As a GENERAL comment, could I say that

Creationists are Human TOO!!!!

Creationists belong to many different religions.

CHRISTIANS are called to LOVE sinners....but to reject sin...

......unlike the World.....which tends to love sin......but ironically, can be very judgemental in regard to some sinners!!!

As a Christian my attitiude to salvation is determined by Eph 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Lovingly,

J C

wolfsbane

robindch wrote:

It was partial coz this is the creationism thread and I only included the few words relevant to creationism (which was the first thing they mentioned, after all!)

Reading what that man said again, what he's actually saying (which you agree with, Brian?) is quite interesting. Not only do this group not want their children to hear that gay people should be tolerated, they also want nobody else in their community to tolerate them either.

I politely suggest that Canada is too liberal a place for these humans to live and that they should move to one or other of the countries in the Middle East or Africa where the homophobia they crave is available at a state-sponsored level.

.

Good to see you all again. I've had a restful summer, but also got a lot of pressing business completed - so I'M BAAACK!

I see JC has kept shining light into your darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Any way, for Robin to suggest the Mennonites are intolerant is a tragic abuse of the word. Like any sincere Christian, they view homosexuality as a sinful lifestyle and would not want their children being taught it is morally good. But that is not the same as wanting to persecute homosexuals. You will find they have the same stance on heterosexual sins. In fact, on any sin.

What the State is doing in Canada is no different to what their secularist colleagues are doing elsewhere - imposing a secularist religion and its accompanying morality. The Mennonites faced State-imposed religion from the RC Church and the Reformed Church, so I'm sure they will continue to practice a truly Christian response.

As I pointed out some time ago, the thought-police are already at work in 'democratic' Britain:
How Britain is turning Christianity into a crime
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=404052&in_page_id=1787

And in a more developed form:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2194682.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3993857.stm

John3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Good to see you all again. I've had a restful summer, but also got a lot of pressing business completed - so I'M BAAACK!

Hurrah! Welcome back!

wolfsbane wrote:

I see JC has kept shining light into your darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Indeed, at no point have we been devoid of his flashes of inspiration. I have to reply to some shining examples after dinner.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

robindch wrote:

Looks to me like creationism is actually what's causing the breakdown in "family values"!

Hmm. That would make Judas an example of what following Christ causes. No, my friend, the US senator is just another example of the tares among the wheat. I know from personal experience many who profess Christianity as a cloak for their evil ways. This man obviously saw the political advantages of 'right-wing' morality. I'm sure if he had saw a better opportunity, he would have been a leading liberal campaigner.

John 12:4 But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said, 5 “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.

Scofflaw

A little reminder that this debate has been going on longer even than this thread!

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote:

As I pointed out some time ago, the thought-police are already at work in 'democratic' Britain:
How Britain is turning Christianity into a crime
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=404052&in_page_id=1787
[/COLOR]

More anti-PC hysteria. At worst, it is institutionalized politeness.
Stewart Lee puts it well in this audio clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE

Since you're back, check out the persecuted church thread.

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

A little reminder that this debate has been going on longer even than this thread!

Excelent link, thanks.