The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

J C wrote:

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

What "interpretation"? There is a new bit of information in the code, that as well as being new has caused large parts of the rest of the code to be re-interpreted by the cell differently. What other interpretation is there?

J C wrote:

However, please bear in mind that the entire process is occurring within a PRE-EXISTING very sophisticated, Intelligently Designed programme.

Clearly, by the definition of your example, its not because someone or something has added a new bit of information to the computer program.

This new bit of information is not pre-existing, because it is "new"

J C wrote:

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

Actually it explains it perfectly. Your ability to understand it (or tell the difference between the common English words "new" and "pre-existing" isn't really relevant to that.

J C 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

Please show me a computer program that comes with an "auto-repair" system

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Hmm. That would make Judas an example of what following Christ causes.[/COLOR]

Is it not? Didn't Judas do what was necessary?

Zombrex

J C wrote:

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

Can we take the fact that you are desperately (and rather haphazardly) try to change the subject away from frame shift mutations as a sign that you now admit that what Scofflaw is describe is the formation of new information producing new abilities in an organism as a result of mutation, rather than a pre-existing dormant ability?

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

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”.

Well, yes, that's exactly the point - in fact the analogy is unusually apt. If we had a digital recording of Mozart, and that recording got corrupted by the addition of one bit, and suddenly we had a piece by Dvorjak instead, that would be an almost exact analogy.

Or, to go back to your original analogy, we might have a piece of software which was supposed to tint an image sepia, but due to a bug actually produced some other new and interesting effect. In a sense that's even more apt, because we would probably seek to keep that 'bug' on the basis that it's useful.

J C wrote:

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

Well, how about we argue that one next. You seem to accept that we're dealing with a mutation that adds new and useful information to the genome, which is an essential mechanism for making evolution happen, and evolution in turn produces the complex structures you're so desperately trying to shift the focus to.

J C wrote:

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:

Well, that's just "says you", isn't it? How about we go on to that next?

J C wrote:

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

Yes, that's because sexual reproduction has nothing to do with mutation - it's just a reshuffling of genetic material. We're talking about mutation here, though.

J C wrote:

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…….

I'm going to let that slide, although it's not actually true.

J C wrote:

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!!!!:)

Such mutations are indeed capable of doing exactly that. And you can do the same thing with computer programs - hence genetic algorithms.

J C wrote:

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!!!!!!

Yes, I know you say that, but it's taken this long to get you to accept the existence of beneficial mutations, even with the evidence staring straight at you. We can work on your misconceptions about evolution one by one (although it would have saved a lot of time if your biology teacher had done it).

J C wrote:

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.

Hmm. You must have skimmed the paper. Apert Syndrome is indeed a genetic mutation, and the paper in question suggests that it is far more common than we might expect, because the testes have a high rate of uncorrected mutation - and in turn, the paper suggests that this is 'deliberate'. So, yes, wearing lead underpants would shield the testes from radiation, and decrease the incidence of Apert Syndrome.

J C wrote:

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

Oh dear no. Most of the time it just results in gobbledygook, you know - renders a stretch of DNA useless. This one just happens to produce something useful instead, but that's just luck.

Besides, the main reason it doesn't work so well in English is because English has 26 letters, and words of different length. You should try a sentence made of only 3-letter words using only 4 letters instead.

J C wrote:

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!!!!:)

DNA could actually be much better designed - it's why we don't store data the same way DNA does. It's far from the theoretically best thing we could have - it's just what we've got, more or less by accident.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

Interesting that the first anti-Creationist cartoon shows a FLOOD.......I wonder are the Evolutionists in denial over SOMETHING????

......the 'flood' of evidence is INDEED overwhelming........and it is all in favour of Creation.........and the latter day 'Darwin Thumpers' are NOW the ones without the functional umbrellas!!!:eek:

......it is also very interesting that the second cartoon features the Biblical 'tree of knowledge (of good and evil)'........the VERY occult knowledge structure that caused the Fall of Man......and which turned out to be a Satanic LIE!!!!:eek:

.......some of the cartoons are a little dated........ we now have 'anti-creation laws' in America.......instead of 'anti-evolution laws'!!!!:eek:

......and the latter day FUNDAMENTALISTS.....are now the EVOLUTIONISTS!!:eek:

Lovingly
J C

Ciaran500

That just shows how twisted your interpertations of things are JC.

bonkey

J C wrote:

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

Can you explain why this nylon-ingestion mutation isn't what you term "micro-Evolution"?

More importantly, can you explain what micro-evolution is, if this nylon-ingesting mutation isn't.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote:

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.

I always suspected secularists had a peculiar concept of institutionalized politeness. Police cells in Britain; children taken into care and gulags in more advanced secular societies.

If you were trying to say that Western oppression is much less than that elsewhere, then of course I agree. My point is that laws suppressing free-speech and encouraging indoctrination lead from minor liabilities like short-term arrests and harrassment, to destruction of property and then destruction of people. 'Juden' on the window becomes burnt place of worship becomes burnt bodies. Liberal facism, in the end, will do the same as any other form of facism - for 'the good of society', all dissent will be exterminated.

I don't see how objecting to such oppression can be labelled anti-PC. Abusive language is to be condemned regardless of who is the target. A non-negro using the term 'n.....' is unacceptable, for it is historically a term of contempt in such circumstances. It is especially deplorable because their is nothing morally wrong with being a negro.

In the case of homosexuals, or promiscuous heterosexuals,there is a moral deficiency (in the view of Christianity, Judaism and Islam in particular). But Christians are not suggesting society imprison them, just that we all be accorded the same right of free-speech. They should be free to say my religion is nonsense; I should be free to say their lifestyle is sinful. Especially, I should be free to teach my children accordingly, not have them taught a different morality.

Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote:

Is it not? Didn't Judas do what was necessary?

Yes, Judas did what was necessary, but it was a wicked act, coming from a corrupt heart, prompted by the Evil One.

God turns the evil desires of men and demons to accomplish their eventual overthrow. The betrayal and murder of the Messiah resulted in the salvation of God's people.

Luke 22:3 Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve. 4 So he went his way and conferred with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them. 5 And they were glad, and agreed to give him money. 6 So he promised and sought opportunity to betray Him to them in the absence of the multitude.

A Primal Nut

J C wrote:

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 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

So if your unfortunate to be born into an atheist, islam,jewish or buddhist family, you're probably doomed. Very fair.:rolleyes:

A Primal Nut

J C wrote:

Interesting that the first anti-Creationist cartoon shows a FLOOD.......I wonder are Evolutionists in denial over SOMETHING????
......the 'flood' of evidence is INDEED overwhelming........and in favour of Creation.........and the latter day 'Darwin Thumpers' are the ones without the functional umbrellas!!!:eek:



Lovingly
J C

Does that include all the evidence of dinosaurs and humans living at the same time?:D :rolleyes:

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, Judas did what was necessary, but it was a wicked act, coming from a corrupt heart, prompted by the Evil One.

God turns the evil desires of men and demons to accomplish their eventual overthrow. The betrayal and murder of the Messiah resulted in the salvation of God's people.

So was Judas' betrayal of Jesus part of God's plan, indeed Jesus' plan?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I always suspected secularists had a peculiar concept of institutionalized politeness. Police cells in Britain; children taken into care and gulags in more advanced secular societies.

If you were trying to say that Western oppression is much less than that elsewhere, then of course I agree. My point is that laws suppressing free-speech and encouraging indoctrination lead from minor liabilities like short-term arrests and harrassment, to destruction of property and then destruction of people. 'Juden' on the window becomes burnt place of worship becomes burnt bodies. Liberal facism, in the end, will do the same as any other form of facism - for 'the good of society', all dissent will be exterminated.

Or possibly wider society worries more about religious activities because of cults like the Children of God. Religion is a powerful force, and the possibilities for the perversion of it are almost endless.

Besides, consider that the most famous example of social services taking children from their parents in the UK was the result of an unfounded rumour that the parents were Satanists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

bonkey wrote:

Can you explain why this nylon-ingestion mutation isn't what you term "micro-Evolution"?

More importantly, can you explain what micro-evolution is, if this nylon-ingesting mutation isn't.

I didn't say that it WASN'T micro-evolution......in fact it seems to be micro-evolution ........or tweaking of existing genetic information via a frame shift!!!:D

Macro-evolution is something akin to manufacturing a car by producing tightly specified components and assembling them in an exact sequence and pattern. It shows overview and requires Intelliegent Design.

Micro-evolution is something akin to washing a car or switching on the wipers.....something simple......indeed so simple that Natural Forces (like a heavy rain shower or an accident push to the switch) could do it!!!!:D

...and just like a car ISN'T produced by multiple million WASHES or WIPES......neither are lifeforms produced by multiple million micro-evolutions!!!:D

Lovingly,

J C

J C

A Primal Nut wrote:

So if your unfortunate to be born into an atheist, islam,jewish or buddhist family, you're probably doomed. Very fair.:rolleyes:

EVERYBODY who believes on Jesus Christ will be saved!!!:D

Lovingly
J C

J C

A Primal Nut wrote:

Does that include all the evidence of dinosaurs and humans living at the same time?:D :rolleyes:

Yes:D

Lovingly,

J C

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

bonkey wrote:

Can you explain why this nylon-ingestion mutation isn't what you term "micro-Evolution"?

More importantly, can you explain what micro-evolution is, if this nylon-ingesting mutation isn't.

I didn't say that it WASN'T micro-evolution......in fact it seems to be micro-evolution ........or tweaking of existing genetic information!!!

Yes, I have to admit I was slightly surprised by that question - I would have thought this was exactly the kind of thing that would be labelled by Creationists as 'micro-evolution'.

The question of whether it's "macro" or "micro" evolution is not really the point though - the point is that it's not "tweaking of existing genetic information", but the addition of an intrusive base pair - that is, a mutation that causes extra information to be added to the genome, because the intrusive base pair is a necessary part of the new reading.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

The question of whether it's "macro" or "micro" evolution is not really the point though - the point is that it's not "tweaking of existing genetic information", but the addition of an intrusive base pair - that is, a mutation that causes extra information to be added to the genome, because the intrusive base pair is a necessary part of the new reading.

I know I'm quoting myself here (sorry), but not everyone necessarily knows why this is important.

Creationists accept 'micro-evolution', but don't accept that this can lead to 'macro-evolution': essentially, they accept that organisms change, but not that such change can lead to an organism of one 'kind' evolving into another 'kind'.

The acceptance of 'micro-evolution' by Creationists is mostly based on the idea that genomes change only in negative or neutral ways - you can degrade the God-given DNA through mutations, or shuffle it about by other means, but at no point can things get better (perhaps because this would mean that God's original design wasn't perfect). The shorthand form of this is that "mutation never leads to new information" - ie, mutations can only be neutral or harmful.

From their point of view, this means that the only changes natural selection has to work upon are negative ones. They would say that this is why change of 'kind' can never happen (as in "He created them after their kind") - all you can get out of a dog by mutation-and-natural selection is a different, and probably degenerate, type of dog.

If you think about it for a moment, of course, this is pretty silly. It's all very well saying that wings, or legs, cannot evolve in the absence of positive mutations, so that you can't get lizards from snakes, but it clearly doesn't apply the other way round. The loss of limbs would produce a different kind just as surely as their addition.

Unfortunately, Creationists can't even say that snakes came from lizards by degenerative mutations, for obvious reasons!

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Ciaran500 wrote:

That just shows how twisted your interpertations of things are JC.

No, it shows just how twisted, things have actually become!!!:eek:

Lovingly

J C

Galvasean

J C wrote:

No, it shows just how twisted, things have actually become!!!:eek:

Lovingly

J C

*shakes fist*

Your logic is twisted!!

*sits back down*

robindch

wolfsbane wrote:

Liberal facism

Thanks -- I'll file that one away with "compassionate conservatism", "creation science" and "moral majority"!

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote:

Thanks -- I'll file that one away with "compassionate conservatism", "creation science" and "moral majority"!

Washington Intelligence?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, Judas did what was necessary, but it was a wicked act, coming from a corrupt heart, prompted by the Evil One.

So Satan accidentally saves humanity? Really?

What would have happened if Judas had not betrayed Jesus? Free will and all? Did he have a choice?

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote:

So Satan accidentally saves humanity? Really?

Satan must be the dumbest entity in existence.

1) Betrays got, gets battered and sent to hell.
2) Accidentally saves humanity.
3) Turns up for the battle of Armageddon when he knows he has no chance of winning. Gets battered again.

wolfsbane

A Primal Nut wrote:

So if your unfortunate to be born into an atheist, islam,jewish or buddhist family, you're probably doomed. Very fair.:rolleyes:

Yes, very fair. Everyone who ends up in hell does so because of his/her own sins. That God spares others by paying for their sins Himself, is a gracious act. He has mercy on whom He will have mercy. That is the nature of mercy - undeserved kindness.

Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

wolfsbane

Son Goku wrote:

So was Judas' betrayal of Jesus part of God's plan, indeed Jesus' plan?

Yes. But not only Judas' part:

Acts 4:27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes. But not only Judas' part:

Acts 4:27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

So, God needed Judas to commit a horrible sin in order to get everybody else saved? Did Judas himself get saved?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote:

So Satan accidentally saves humanity? Really?

What would have happened if Judas had not betrayed Jesus? Free will and all? Did he have a choice?

1. Yes, really. Satan had no intention of doing so. Just as his actions in the lives of believers, Satan is God's unwitting blacksmith. All the hammering and the heat result in the perfect blade, not the destruction he intended.

2. There was no real possibility of it being otherwise. Hypothetically it could, just as hypothetically man could perfectly keep God's law and so not need a Saviour. But not in reality. Same reason: man's free will is chained to his sinful nature. He freely sins. It takes God to intervene to stop him doing so. God left Judas to Satan's influence.

John 13:1 Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.
2 And supper being ended, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him, 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God, 4 rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself. 5 After that, He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote:

Or possibly wider society worries more about religious activities because of cults like the Children of God. Religion is a powerful force, and the possibilities for the perversion of it are almost endless.

Besides, consider that the most famous example of social services taking children from their parents in the UK was the result of an unfounded rumour that the parents were Satanists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I have no problem with eternal vigilance against abuse, by religions/ideologies or individuals. We ought to keep a close eye on all who seek to exercise authority.

But the suppression of free speech and the threat of taking children into care so that they will be properly indoctrinated is the issue before us. The mantle of imperial Papacy has fallen on Secularism. The Holy Inquisition sits in our courts and social services executives.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote:

Thanks -- I'll file that one away with "compassionate conservatism", "creation science" and "moral majority"!

Yes, any thinking man will acknowledge the existence of all these - whether they agree with them or not.