The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

Well, I'm glad to see that JC is refreshed, and has come out of his corner fighting. Shame his shoelaces are still tied together.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
It's a good deal less true than it was 30 years ago. The intervening decades have seen an explosion in palaeontology, and the filling in of a good number of 'missing links'. However, the picture will never be filled without a full, and totally provable, parent-child succession for ever single lineage. Funnily enough, if the world were only a few thousand years old, we'd be an awful lot closer to having such a thing...

It is just as true as it was 30 years ago…… even though our knowledge of the fossil record has expanded since then, the situation hasn’t changed much.
…….and all of the ‘missing links’ are still MISSING!!!!:eek:

A missing link by definition is always missing. Like I said, JC, there will always be missing links, unless we have the whole of a family tree with fossils of every single generation preserved in such a way that we can conclusively prove they are each in turn the descendant of the previous fossil.

However, many of what were considered missing links 30 years ago, like the intermediate species between whales and their land-dwelling forebears, have been discovered in the intervening period.

JC wrote:

……..and Evolutionist ‘icons’ like as the evolution of the horse, have had to be discarded as a result of more detailed information......over the past 30 years!!!!!:D

Sigh. You mean the version found in children's books? Yes, that's inaccurate, surprisingly enough - the descent is neither as simple, nor as linear, as the picture often presented. Further evidence, and the discovery of yet more 'missing links', has allowed a more complex history to be discerned, although the basic outline remains pretty much the same.

Once again, JC, you are arguing against old historical science, and claiming that because it has changed, it is all false. This is because you cannot understand the difference between scientific theories and "revealed truth". Science is about change - it is designed to evolve. It is the slow piecing together of evidence to form pictures, and any new piece of evidence can change the picture, sometimes radically.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
Actually, punctuated evolution is a form of gradual evolution.

Whatever!!!:eek:

Anyway, punctuated equilibrium never was accepted by the majority of Evolutionists……and it has been in decline due to the absence of any observed mechanism for it's existence…….a fact that YOU have graciously confirmed in the following quote:-
Scofflaw
"Punctuated evolution" is hardly "largely abandoned" - it has just never had a particularly prominent place in evolutionary theory. It has achieved a greater measure of public fame than scientific respect (because Gould is a good writer, but never offered much in the way of proof)

Er, yes. Your point? Most evolutionary scientists would opt for variable-rate evolution, as did Darwin. The early emphasis on the gradualism of evolution was in response to the then-prominence of Catastrophism.

JC wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Lovingly
J C

Scofflaw
I love flattery!

….my declaration of love is generalised and entirely platonic……I hasten to add!!!:eek:

Yes, but your copying of my signature signoff is rather particular.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
I haven't forgotten - we've got as far as "we can add new information to the genome by beneficial mutation", and JC has stated for the record that he never claimed beneficial mutations didn't happen, which is JC's form of graceful acceptance.

I have ALWAYS accepted that ‘beneficial mutations’ can (rarely) happen.
However, they DON'T add new information to the genome……..
.....they may ‘leverage’ existing information……or phenotypically expose existing information…….but they DON’T add new original information!!!!:cool:

Except as is provably the case here, they did. The frameshifted DNA, plus the added mutation, is what codes for the new enzyme, not merely the frameshifted DNA by itself..

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
Just for the record, I'd like to point out that it has that JC has no answer to the nylon enzyme frameshift mutation, and the convenient reference point of post 7000 will take us back to that little bit of progress at any time he tries that approach.

…….and l, in turn, refer you to Post # 6981 on page 350…….where I comprehensively ‘buried’ the ‘Nylon Bug’……and all its (empty) Evolutionist promises!!!!!:D

No, because that post suffered exactly the same major mistake as you've just repeated above - you claimed that the frameshift was just the use of existing DNA, and left out the addition of a base by mutation. This is inaccurate - your version contradicts the evidence.

What "empty evolutionist promises" did it make, by the way? Biodegradable tights?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

God voluntarily limits His omnipotence in His dealings with Mankind.......

Orchestrating the rise of the Roman Empire hardly strikes me as restrained. Particularly since I would have thought any other setup would have done just as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Sorry - third post, I know - but some of us (perhaps all, indeed) may enjoy this anatomy of a bad science story.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

A missing link by definition is always missing.

A missing link is always missing....only IF it never existed in the first place!!!!:eek:

.......and was a figment of the heated imaginations of Evolutionists ......like ALL 'missing links'!!!!!:)

Scofflaw wrote:

However, many of what were considered missing links 30 years ago, like the intermediate species between whales and their land-dwelling forebears, have been discovered in the intervening period.

.......another figment of the heated imaginations of Evolutionists !!!:D

Scofflaw wrote:

Sigh. You mean the version found in children's books? Yes, that's inaccurate, surprisingly enough - the descent is neither as simple, nor as linear, as the picture often presented. Further evidence, and the discovery of yet more 'missing links', has allowed a more complex history to be discerned, although the basic outline remains pretty much the same.

Yes, 'The descent of the Horse' and 'The Peppered Moth' joined other great Evolutionist stories like 'The Frog that turned into a Prince' in the fiction area of Childrens Bookstores!!!:eek:

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes, but your copying of my signature signoff is rather particular.

.......but your signature signoff DOESN'T say 'Lovingly' or 'J C'!!!!:D

Scofflaw wrote:

Except as is provably the case here, they did. The frameshifted DNA, plus the added mutation, is what codes for the new enzyme, not merely the frameshifted DNA by itself..

The 'mutation' IS the frameshift.....and the fact that the frameshift isn't lethal......is due to the unique Intelligent Design of the DNA......that allows it the God-given 'fluidity' to accommodate the necessary changes required to adapt to environmental change while still retaining the viability and integrity of the organism!!!!!!!!!!!!:D .

Scofflaw wrote:

What "empty evolutionist promises" did it make, by the way? Biodegradable tights?

That is the ONLY claim that ISN'T empty.......it can destroy tights and bore holes in knickers in a 'half-hearted' kind of way......and that is just about ALL that it does ......or ever will do!!!:eek:

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Sorry - third post, I know - but some of us (perhaps all, indeed) may enjoy this anatomy of a bad science story.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sounds like almost every half-baked account of an 'EVOLUTIONARY BREAKTHROUGH' (Sic) that I have read recently has been concocted using this guide!!!:eek:

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

A missing link by definition is always missing.

.......only IF it never existed in the first place!!!!:eek:

.......and was a figment of the heated imaginations of Evolutionists ......like ALL 'missing links'!!!!!:)

Scofflaw wrote:

However, many of what were considered missing links 30 years ago, like the intermediate species between whales and their land-dwelling forebears, have been discovered in the intervening period.

.......another figment of the heated imaginations of Evolutionists !!!:D

Yes, 'The descent of the Horse' joined 'The Frog that turned into a Prince' in the fiction area of Childrens Bookstores!!!:eek:

Do you actually consider that you have advanced your argument in any way here?

JC wrote:

The 'mutation' IS the frameshift.....and the fact that the frameshift isn't lethal......is due to the unique Intelligent Design of the DNA......that allows it the God-given 'fluidity' to accommodate the necessary changes required to adapt to environmental change while still retaining the viability and integrity of the organism!!!!!!!!!!!!:D .

Hmm. We obviously need to go over this again:

Old sequence: GGG-TTT-CCC-AAA-TTT....codes for enzyme X

New sequence: GGG-ATT-TCC-CAA-ATT-T....codes for nylon enzyme

The 'A' in bold there is the mutation, which is an addition to the sequence, and shifts the rest of the code. The frameshift is the result of the mutation, but is not the mutation itself.

Can we be entirely clear here - your claim that "the 'mutation' IS the frameshift" is empty rubbish, because the mutation is the intrusive base pair which produces the frameshift. The frameshift is not the mutation, but the result of it. Like I said, you're simply trying to flim-flam away very straightforward evidence that directly contradicts your position....

JC wrote:

That is the ONLY claim that ISN'T empty.......it can destroy tights and knickers in a 'half-hearted' way......and that is just about ALL that it does ......or ever will do!!!:eek:

...largely by talking pants.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter

Scofflaw wrote:

Sorry - third post, I know - but some of us (perhaps all, indeed) may enjoy this anatomy of a bad science story.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks for this, it made me smile (and think of Metro).

Incidentally, it led me to this, which reminded me of someone.

Not plagiaristically at all,
The Mad Hatter

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Orchestrating the rise of the Roman Empire hardly strikes me as restrained. Particularly since I would have thought any other setup would have done just as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You are confusing prophecy with predestination!!!:D

Prophecy yes, predestination no!!!

The problem with an 'omnipotent pre-destination' is that God becomes somewhat 'responsible' for both the evil and and the good in the world.....which is perilously close to 'dualism'!!!!:eek:

Equally, the need to "go forth and teach all nations" becomes a little pointless if God will do it all anyhow!!!:D
I understand that 'ultra-Calvanists' don't engage in missionary activity for this very reason.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Because only He could pay for His people's sins. Being both God and sinless man, He could take on Himself all their sins, make atonement for these sinners so that they would be right with God.

Right with God? Jesus is God.

God made himself suffer to make atonement to himself for sinners so that they would be right with him when he judges them

Do you see the issue with that? Why does God need to impress himself with his own suffering?

Its like saying God looks at someone and says "You aren't saved" and then slices his arm off and says "Actually now you are saved, because I've impressed myself with the sacrifice to me, from me, of my own sliced off arm".

The slicing of the arm, by God, so he can present himself with his own sliced off arm to atone to himself for something he judges, seems rather unnecessary.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Thanks for this, it made me smile (and think of Metro).

Incidentally, it led me to this, which reminded me of someone.

Not plagiaristically at all,
The Mad Hatter

The best 'crank' idea that I ever came across was somebody maintaining that he was a direct descendent of Pondslime........that really impressed everyone every time he 'rolled it out'!!!:eek:

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The best 'crank' idea that I ever come across was somebody maintaining that he was a direct descendent of Pondslime........that really impressed everyone every time he 'rolled it out'!!!:eek:

I would never claim you are a direct descendent of pond slime JC .. I wouldn't wish to insult pond slime ... :eek: :cool:

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. We obviously need to go over this again:

Old sequence: GGG-TTT-CCC-AAA-TTT....codes for enzyme X

New sequence: GGG-ATT-TCC-CAA-ATT-T....codes for nylon enzyme

The 'A' in bold there is the mutation, which is an addition to the sequence, and shifts the rest of the code. The frameshift is the result of the mutation, but is not the mutation itself.

You're getting fierce pedantic, Scofflaw!!!!!:D

OK, the insertion is the mutation is the cause of the frameshift is the cause of the enzyme is the cause of the Knickers developing indecent holes in them!!!:eek:

Happy now???!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote:

You're getting fierce pedantic, Scofflaw!!!!!:D

OK, the insertion is the mutation is the cause of the frameshift is the cause of the enzyme is the cause of the Knickers developing indecent holes in them!!!:eek:

Happy now???!!!

Well you have just agreed to natural evolution producing beneficial adaptation in living organisms due to the introduction of new information by a process of mutation, something you swore before was impossible. So, yes, I think everyone is happy.

Someone should tell Wolfbane .....

Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Thanks for this, it made me smile (and think of Metro).

Incidentally, it led me to this, which reminded me of someone.

Not plagiaristically at all,
The Mad Hatter

Good link! I particularly liked this:

"The presentation of this idea is also important. Remember that really important people with really important ideas don't have time for grammar or spelling. Also try interesting use of punctuation!!!!, CAPITALization and text color. When you EMPHASIZE things people will inevitably take your more seriously."

Do you think he's a reader?

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Wicknight wrote:

I would never claim you are a direct descendent of pond slime JC .. I wouldn't wish to insult pond slime ... :eek: :cool:

......insulting Pondslime.....that's an even better Crank idea, than claiming descent from it .....with endless dramatic possiblities

......you could love, honour and obey Pondslime.......

.....and if that failed to impress you could always divorce Ponslime!!!

......the possibilities of Pondslime for endless 'Crankiness' are........literally (and metaphorically) ........endless!!!:eek:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

You're getting fierce pedantic, Scofflaw!!!!!:D

OK, the insertion is the mutation is the cause of the frameshift is the cause of the enzyme is the cause of the Knickers developing indecent holes in them!!!:eek:

Happy now???!!!

Well, "the mutation is the insertion is the cause of the frameshift is the cause of the enzyme is the cause of the Knickers developing indecent holes in them" is more accurate, while I'm being fierce pedantic.

There you go - easy as ABC. Or ATT in this case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

......insulting Pondslime.....that's an even better Crank idea, than claiming descent from it .....with endless dramatic possiblities

......you could love, honour and obey Pondslime.......

.....and if that failed to impress you could always divorce Ponslime!!!

......the possibilities of Pondslime for endless 'Crankiness' are........literally (and metaphorically) ........endless!!!:eek:

Well I suppose when you are spending eternity in heaven bored out of your mind it will give you something to do

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Thanks for this, it made me smile (and think of Metro).

Incidentally, it led me to this, which reminded me of someone.

Not plagiaristically at all,
The Mad Hatter

Wow, it is as if it was written specifically about a certain someone ...

Accusation: "You don't have solid proof"
Response: Either restate what you said already, restate it slightly differently, call your accuser a name, or suggest they are part of the conspiracy to hide the truth. Compare yourself to Galileo.

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote:

Wow, it is as if it was written specifically about a certain someone ...

Ah, your mistake here is accrediting cranks with a variety of styles.

The Mad Hatter

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Thanks for this, it made me smile (and think of Metro).

Incidentally, it led me to this, which reminded me of someone.

Not plagiaristically at all,
The Mad Hatter

Yeah, I think that was posted here before actually.
So long ago that we'd all forgotten...

J C

Wicknight wrote:

Well you have just agreed to natural evolution producing beneficial adaptation in living organisms due to the introduction of new information by a process of mutation, something you swore before was impossible. So, yes, I think everyone is happy.

Always glad to spread a little happiness!!!:D

However, the so-called 'beneficial adaptation' of the 'Nylon Bug' is due to the 'leveraging' of the EXISTING massive information base......and NOT due to the introduction of new information.:cool:

Your enthusiasm at the discovery of the 'half-baked munching' of the 'Knicker Eating Bug'...........is like somebody whacking the dashboard of their car with a hammer and excitedly reporting that, as a result, the Wiper Switch now turns on the lights and the radio............and that this 'beneficial adaption' can be replicated by whacking other parts of the car with a hammer as well!!!!
......pretty soon you wouldn't recognise the car from all of the 'changes' that the hammer would inflict...........but I don't think that a million hammer blows will IMPROVE the car......even IF new things start happening.......like water and oil streaming out of NEW places from where water and oil have never flowed before!!! :eek:

BTW I am glad that we are making progress and that you are now accepting that the genome contains INFORMATION.....because the ONLY known ultimate source of information is INTELLIGENCE!!!!:D

Lovingly,

J C

Scofflaw

Discovered: The asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs (New Scientist).

I love the name of the asteroid group, considering how big a part it played in the evolution of life on Earth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

Discovered: The asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs (New Scientist).

I love the name of the asteroid group, considering how big a part it played in the evolution of life on Earth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is interesting. A group has run a many-body simulation of an asteroid family over several million years and found that one element of the group collided with Earth 65 million years ago. Exactly matching fossil records which according to dating methods say dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

Two completely independant sources of information have both offered the exact same date. How can creationists explain this sensibly (as in not saying nonsense like "It is the arrogance of man").

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Discovered: The asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs (New Scientist).

...........probably by triggering the FLOOD!!!!:eek:

............which killed off all of the other fossilised creatures as well!!

Scofflaw wrote:

I love the name of the asteroid group, considering how big a part it played in the evolution of life on Earth.

I too am intrigued by the name 'Baptistina' ...........which resonates with the watery purification of sin from the face of the Earth which was wrought by the Flood !!!:cool:

.....as I have asked before....are the Evolutionists in denial over SOMETHING????

......and why didn't they simply call them Noah ......and be done with it!!!!:D

Son Goku

J C wrote:

[/B]
...........probably by triggering the FLOOD!!!!:eek:

............which killed off all of the other fossilised creatures as well!!



I too am intrigued by the name 'Baptistina' ...........which reflects the watery purification of evil from the face of the Earth which was wrought by the Flood !!!:cool:

.....as I have said before....are the Evolutionists in denial of SOMETHING????

Calculations say it hit the Earth 65 million years ago. Are you saying the flood happened 65 million years ago?

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

This is interesting. A group has run a many-body simulation of an asteroid family over several million years and found that one element of the group collided with Earth 65 million years ago. Exactly matching fossil records which according to dating methods say dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

Two completely independant sources of information have both offered the exact same date. How can creationists explain this sensibly (as in not saying nonsense like "It is the arrogance of man").

Well, I was going to say that you'd be unfairly limiting their options there, but I see JC has ignored your stricture already. I don't think, myself, that the impact of an asteroid as large as that could fail to be mentioned in the Bible - after all, Krakatoa was heard around the world, and we're talking a much bigger bang here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Well, but those are "compassionate conservatives", and they don't prove the existence of a philosophy of "compassionate conservatism".

If there are more than a few and they consistently articulate their view, they are presenting compassionate conservatism. Ditto for all the other isms.

Yes, conservatives are saved from that particular piece of hypocrisy...

Every label has its own hypocrites. Except Hypocrite.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

If there are more than a few and they consistently articulate their view, they are presenting compassionate conservatism. Ditto for all the other isms.

Not at all. You could believe, and say in public, that the poor deserve no help because they're lazy, while actually helping the poor in all your spare time. The theory you put forward is not "compassionate conservatism" even though you are a compassionate conservative.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Oh, come on, that's a bit of a cop-out.

Why so? Makes sense, given the existance of such an infinitely good, wise and holy God. What He reveals to us of the spiritual world, we accept. What He doesn't reveal, how could we possibly find out? Since His intention for His people is their ultimate blessing, whatever He hasn't revealed must be of no profit to them.

Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Psalm 84:11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield;
The LORD will give grace and glory;
No good thing will He withhold
From those who walk uprightly.

Galvasean

J C wrote:

.......another figment of the heated imaginations of Evolutionists !!!:D

Wait, we imagined all the fossils now? And here I was thinking that God made the fossils and planted them to test our faith.
Nonetheless I'm glad horrible things like this never existed.
:eek: