The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No one spotted the 'deliberate' mistake yet, in my post 7660.

My apologies for saying Dawkings when I meant Sam Harris. I've corrected it by edit now.

Well to be honest when you and JC go into your little back patting sessions I tend to just tune out ....

wolfsbane

gillyfromlyre wrote: »

totally pointless argument, "ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space", nobody can prove anyone else wrong, if we came into being through evolution. thats fascinating, if we suddenly appeared through creationism, thats fascinating, to me, both ideas are as weird and mystical as each other, both are bewildering ideas and still make no sense logically, how can the universe be an accident?, how can the universe suddenly appear, arranged by a god? I always take this debate lightly, and i dont think we are anywhere near understanding what its all about

As to proof, one can examine the evidence and see if a credible case can be made for creation/evolution, and which seems stronger. But ultimate proof is found in one's conscience - God has given us sufficient witness for us to know He is the creator of all. Being rebels against Him in our hearts, we may well suppress that knowledge, preferring other explanations.

As to logic, both the 'accident' model of atheistic materialism and the 'design' model of Christianity can be logical explanations of the existence of the universe, given their respective presuppositions.

The real issue is, Which matches the observed reality in the universe around and in our hearts?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Which collapses the Christian position down to the level of "deterrence through fear of punishment" - the only difference being the certainty of punishment.

Yes. I was thinking mostly of those who have no love for God, but who may fear His wrath.

For the Christian tempted to sin, love strongly comes into the equation. How can we disobey and dishonour the one we love? That is added to the fear of the consequencies.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

But ultimate proof is found in one's conscience

Subjective proof is found in one's conscience.

It is the type of proof that allows the Phelps to believe they are doing Gods work spreading their message of hate.

It is the type of proof that allowed Islamic terrorists to believe they were doing Allah's work, crashing airliners into densely-populated skyscrapers.

If that is your definition of ultimate proof, then I want none of it.

- God has given us sufficient witness for us to know He is the creator of all.

You seem to have mis-spelled "me" as "us" in that sentence. Again - I refer you to the above monsters and their ilk who have also made such claims time and time again about what sufficient witness God has given them.

Your argument is an abandonment of science. Furthermore, if someone believes in an entirely different God to you they can make the exact same statement. Their God has given them just as much witness as yours has given you. What makes them wrong and you right?

As to logic, both the 'accident' model of atheistic materialism and the 'design' model of Christianity can be logical explanations of the existence of the universe, given their respective presuppositions.

Can be, yes. The 'design' model can be a logical explanation, as long as it incorporates the admission that the design was made to look exactly like an 'accident' model (as you call it).

The real issue is, Which matches the observed reality in the universe around and in our hearts?

No, thats not the real issue. As I've said, the only way a design model can match observation is if it looks just like a non-design model. Observation cannot distinguish between the two. Any claim to the contrary is conflating observation with blind faith.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Getting this straight -- people who share your religious beliefs are the only people who are behaving morally in the correct way?

Correct.

And people who make sound moral judgments (because, say, they're nice people) are simply misguided and doing the wrong thing?

No, just doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

Fair enough -- I see where you're coming from. Your sole input into any decision you make is your personal interpretation of the bible.

Correct.

You do this because you believe (a) that your holy book was written by, or with the inspiration of, the deity who created the universe,

Yes.

and (b) it contains the only information that humans will need in order to make sound moral judgments

Yes. Well put.

and (c) you are unable to make a mistake in either (a) or (b).

Both (a) and (b) are infallibly correct - but I am not. I can and do make errors in understanding both what is directly said and in deriving principles from that.

This, of course, puts you in the same bracket as Warren Jeffs, the Rev Jim Jones of Guyana, the WTC hijackers, etc, etc, etc. All of them had their holy books too and interpreted them carefully, just as you do yours, and all of them are/were spectacularly immoral.

Jeffs and Jones are not like true Christians. We may misunderstand the Bible and end up doing some seriously wrong things - executing heretics, for example. Those guys don't/didn't even seem to be trying to understand the Bible's teachings, just running their own empires.

The WTC hijackers openly rejected the Bible as God's word. They followed the Koran - and it can be strongly argued that they were following its teachings correctly. Just that it is a book of error, so they were bound to err.

So what makes you right when you do (a), (b) and (c) above and everybody else wrong?

When I correctly use (a) and (b) then I will be right. Those who deny or ignore both may get some things right because of their conscience or because of society's demands, but those are not detailed guides. The unbeliever will therefore often err.

incorkfornow

There is no proof that a deity more powerful than ourselves exists. Science has given humanity vaccination, contraception, antiseptics and countless health fixes that have been tested on animals and ancestors of ours in the evolutional sense. If anyone who opposes the theory of evolution has taken an antibiotic or pain medication, know that it was largely because of that theory that you got better.

God is a simple concept. A concept that is quite masochistic. If you feel you need God in your life to the extent of fanaticism and going against logic and common sense, then you clearly lack something in your life.

By all means fill it, but in terms of argument, referring to the bible every ten seconds when dealing with people who have made their minds up that it is myth is a blatantly ignorant thing to do. Speaking of god as a person you know well when to my knowledge, none of you have claimed to direct conversation with him (as in, he spoke to you, and you alone, in a language of your choice, and not by a tree falling in the woods that nobody hears) seems somewhat blasphemous.

If your god does exist, allow him the privelage to speak for himself, and do not insult him by misconstruing the meaning of it because of your own personal ideas.

I'm open to the concept of religion. But organised religion has caused more war, fights, and greed than any other force on the earth.

Creationism is implausible, especially because many christians believe the earth to be a few thousand years old, and when carbon dating revealed it wasn't- they believed it to be a work of the devil. Yet have used the same technique for proving religious artifacts are of an age to back up their own beliefs.

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Subjective proof is found in one's conscience.

It can be subjective, certainly. But if the Bible is true, then conscience does also bear witness to objective truth.

It is the type of proof that allows the Phelps to believe they are doing Gods work spreading their message of hate.

Yes, when people want to sin they can stifle their conscience and persuade themselves that the evil inclinations of their heart is conscience speaking.

It is the type of proof that allowed Islamic terrorists to believe they were doing Allah's work, crashing airliners into densely-populated skyscrapers.

Ditto. And following evil instruction - as the Koran - is bound to assure one that evil is good.

If that is your definition of ultimate proof, then I want none of it.

Thankfully, it's not.

Quote:
- God has given us sufficient witness for us to know He is the creator of all.

You seem to have mis-spelled "me" as "us" in that sentence.

No mistake. We all have the witness.

Again - I refer you to the above monsters and their ilk who have also made such claims time and time again about what sufficient witness God has given them.

Same as the rest of us. Obviously they have been persuaded to ignore conscience and construct for themselves gods and goals of their own imagination. See Romans 1.

Your argument is an abandonment of science.

My argument has nothing to do with science. It is all about the spiritual realm - our spirits knowing enough about the Spirit who created them, about His will for them.

Furthermore, if someone believes in an entirely different God to you they can make the exact same statement. Their God has given them just as much witness as yours has given you. What makes them wrong and you right?

Their god is false, and if a spirit then it is a lying spirit:
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Can be, yes. The 'design' model can be a logical explanation, as long as it incorporates the admission that the design was made to look exactly like an 'accident' model (as you call it).

Not so. What we observe does not look like an accident. Even our opponents concede this, hence the talk of 'apparent' design: http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Apparent_Design

The debate is about whether the design is apparent or real.

Quote:
The real issue is, Which matches the observed reality in the universe around and in our hearts?

No, thats not the real issue. As I've said, the only way a design model can match observation is if it looks just like a non-design model.

See above.

Observation cannot distinguish between the two. Any claim to the contrary is conflating observation with blind faith.

I think you are confused. We both observe the same things, but our models do not equally explain them. Both may be logical given their presuppositions, but they may turn out not to match the observed reality.

Design, Real or Imagined?

incorkfornow

wolfsbane wrote: »

bonkey said:

It can be subjective, certainly. But if the Bible is true, then conscience does also bear witness to objective truth.


Yes, when people want to sin they can stifle their conscience and persuade themselves that the evil inclinations of their heart is conscience speaking.


Ditto. And following evil instruction - as the Koran - is bound to assure one that evil is good.


Thankfully, it's not.


No mistake. We all have the witness.


Same as the rest of us. Obviously they have been persuaded to ignore conscience and construct for themselves gods and goals of their own imagination. See Romans 1.


My argument has nothing to do with science. It is all about the spiritual realm - our spirits knowing enough about the Spirit who created them, about His will for them.


Their god is false, and if a spirit then it is a lying spirit:
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.


Not so. What we observe does not look like an accident. Even our opponents concede this, hence the talk of 'apparent' design: http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Apparent_Design

The debate is about whether the design is apparent or real.


See above.


I think you are confused. We both observe the same things, but our models do not equally explain them. Both may be logical given their presuppositions, but they may turn out not to match the observed reality.

Design, Real or Imagined?

You really don't get the whole 'bible is not a valid reference point if it is seen as mythology' idea do you?

Your ignorance astounds me....

wolfsbane

incorkfornow wrote: »

You really don't get the whole 'bible is not a valid reference point if it is seen as mythology' idea do you?

Your ignorance astounds me....

Just a quickie. My constant ref. to the Bible comes because:
1. This is the Christianity forum.
2. This is The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy thread

and I'm offering a Christian defence of my assertions.

That you hold it to be mythology is your problem. If you wanted a Hindu explanation, or a New Atheist one, there are no doubt boards to accommodate.

Here you get the Christian view - debated by many friends of various religions and none.

incorkfornow

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just a quickie. My constant ref. to the Bible comes because:
1. This is the Christianity forum.
2. This is The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy thread

and I'm offering a Christian defence of my assertions.

That you hold it to be mythology is your problem. If you wanted a Hindu explanation, or a New Atheist one, there are no doubt boards to accommodate.

Here you get the Christian view - debated by many friends of various religions and none.

First, my point was not that you were not allowed to reference the bible. Go ahead. My point was that if you want to argue effectively against people who believe it to be mythology, and not insult their intelligence, you should use some other source material.

Second, you come across as supersidious and patronising, condescending to the highest degee, and i believe argument with you is pointless, as you concede no point of view but your own. I thus refuse to communicate with someone of such ignorant standing on this forum.

Third, it is not my problem with the bible. It is your problem with reference to many other kinds of material. You are like a fanatic, someone who cannot see past a book of gathered myth and legend to even illustrate their point correctly.

I also have to go make a cup of tea. xD

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Scofflaw said:

Yes. I was thinking mostly of those who have no love for God, but who may fear His wrath.

For the Christian tempted to sin, love strongly comes into the equation. How can we disobey and dishonour the one we love? That is added to the fear of the consequencies.

That is quite reasonable, but applies no less to those who actually like/love their fellow human beings - which I see as applying to the vast majority of us (and you might not?).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

incorkfornow wrote: »

First, my point was not that you were not allowed to reference the bible. Go ahead. My point was that if you want to argue effectively against people who believe it to be mythology, and not insult their intelligence, you should use some other source material.

Second, you come across as supersidious and patronising, condescending to the highest degee, and i believe argument with you is pointless, as you concede no point of view but your own. I thus refuse to communicate with someone of such ignorant standing on this forum.

Third, it is not my problem with the bible. It is your problem with reference to many other kinds of material. You are like a fanatic, someone who cannot see past a book of gathered myth and legend to even illustrate their point correctly.

I also have to go make a cup of tea. xD

Quality post.

wolfsbane

incorkfornow said:

There is no proof that a deity more powerful than ourselves exists.

There is evidence that suggests He does. Sufficient to damn us if we ignore it. But 'proof' in an absolute sense is maybe what you mean. Atheists advance alternative explanations of the evidence.

Science has given humanity vaccination, contraception, antiseptics and countless health fixes that have been tested on animals

Indeed it has.

and ancestors of ours in the evolutional sense.

??? I didn't know any evolutionist held that we had ancestors alive today (other than our grandparents), much less that they have been used for drugs-testing!

If anyone who opposes the theory of evolution has taken an antibiotic or pain medication, know that it was largely because of that theory that you got better.

That is as silly as me claiming it all for Creationism and Intelligent Design: both evolution and Creationism accept selection and adaption. Creationists say it applies only within kinds - that bacteria will not evolve into non-bacteria, for example. Evolutionist say they will.

God is a simple concept.

OK.

A concept that is quite masochistic. If you feel you need God in your life to the extent of fanaticism and going against logic and common sense, then you clearly lack something in your life.

I find Theism much more logical and commonsensical than atheism. Fanaticism needs to be defined if I am to answer that charge. Is fanaticism always an evil? Can it apply to a harmless pastime? Or can it be the height of virtue?

By all means fill it, but in terms of argument, referring to the bible every ten seconds when dealing with people who have made their minds up that it is myth is a blatantly ignorant thing to do.

See my previous post.

Speaking of god as a person you know well when to my knowledge, none of you have claimed to direct conversation with him (as in, he spoke to you, and you alone, in a language of your choice, and not by a tree falling in the woods that nobody hears) seems somewhat blasphemous.

God defines what is blasphemous. The Christian's knowledge of Him is well defined in the Bible. Mine does not include (to date) any audible voice, but it does the definite prompting and revelation of the Holy Spirit. That would hold for most Christians, to my knowledge.

If your god does exist, allow him the privelage to speak for himself,

He has. The Bible is His word to man. In it are recorded the words of the prophets and apostles to whom God gave the message to tell us. Supremely, He spoke through His son, Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus commissioned the Church to take this message to every man.

and do not insult him by misconstruing the meaning of it because of your own personal ideas.

I try not to. I do my best to speak only according to His Word.

I'm open to the concept of religion. But organised religion has caused more war, fights, and greed than any other force on the earth.

I think you down-play the part indivuals like you and me contribute, and the part atheist movements have played in mass murder in the 20th century. But certainly religions have played a big part. Most religions are of course false, and therefore we can expect nothing else from them.

Creationism is implausible, especially because many christians believe the earth to be a few thousand years old, and when carbon dating revealed it wasn't- they believed it to be a work of the devil.

Work of the devil, as opposed to based on mistaken presupposition? I've only encountered the latter. We do say the whole evolutionary movement is a work of the devil, but not particular elements of scientific methods.

Yet have used the same technique for proving religious artifacts are of an age to back up their own beliefs.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Who are the they, what is the specific technique and what are the religious artifacts?

P.S. I see from your latest post that you don't intend responding to my arguments. That's up to you. I leave your supposed reasons for others to judge.

Anyway, here's my response to your last post:

First, my point was not that you were not allowed to reference the bible. Go ahead. My point was that if you want to argue effectively against people who believe it to be mythology, and not insult their intelligence, you should use some other source material.

For the scientific or philosophical stuff, I do. Maybe you haven't read any of the debate to date? But if you are thinking of the spiritual/moral issues, then I'm not here to offer atheist, Hindu, wiccan, etc. arguments. How could that be an effective argument for Christianity?

Second, you come across as supersidious and patronising, condescending to the highest degee,

I'm sorry you feel that. It certainly is not my thought nor intention. Could it be that you so dislike what I'm saying that you are 'killing' the messenger?

and i believe argument with you is pointless, as you concede no point of view but your own.

I respect other's views - but do you want me to say they are correct if I believe they are not? Do you concede JC's Creationist arguments?

I thus refuse to communicate with someone of such ignorant standing on this forum.

Glad to hear from you if you change your mind.

Third, it is not my problem with the bible. It is your problem with reference to many other kinds of material. You are like a fanatic, someone who cannot see past a book of gathered myth and legend to even illustrate their point correctly.

I don't have a problem with so many other kinds of material that I can't think where this mass of material is. Are you referring just to evolutionary textbooks? Radio-dating inferences? Have you a problem with Creationist textbooks and their Radio-dating inferences? Are you a fanatic?

I also have to go make a cup of tea. xD

Yes, I hope it makes you feel a bit better.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is as silly as me claiming it all for Creationism and Intelligent Design: both evolution and Creationism accept selection and adaption. Creationists say it applies only within kinds

For the love of Allah can one of your Creationists please define what a "kind" is

Are you saying that Darwinian evolution takes place but only within this (as yet) completely undefined higher than species but lower than, what? Class?

What stops evolution continuing past the "kind" barrier?

Eventually in the Creationist model a descendant of a "kind" should evolve traits that are so far away from others who descendant from the "kind" that they no long fall into a different class.

wolfsbane wrote: »

that bacteria will not evolve into non-bacteria, for example. Evolutionist say they will.

You wouldn't be here if it didn't.

BrianCalgary

to incorkfornow

I have just reviewed you rfirst three posts on the Christianity thread.

In all three you have managed to call a veteran poster ignorant.

Not an auspicious start.

An apology has to be forthcoming and any other transgression will result in a banning.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

So because Adam eat an fruit he was told not to God decided that lions should kill the cubs of other lions when they take over a pride

Wow, your God sounds super swell .. where do I sign up :rolleyes:

The (ultimate) reason why Lions kill.......other creatures, as well as lion cubs.....is because sin entered the World at the Fall and with sin came death.

Adam and Eve used their free will to acquire the knowledge of good and EVIL and they thus caused sin and death to enter the physical universe......and all of Creation has been living with the consequences ever since.

The mistake that you are making is to assume (as Adam and Eve also did) that it is a trivial matter to disobey a command of God.......it can have very serious consequences as Adam and Eve found out to their cost!!!:D

Most people visiting a building site would obey all of the safety instructions of the builder without question ......yet many of these same people stubborny refuse to obey the safety instructions of the 'Builder of the Universe'.......strange but true!!!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

For the love of Allah can one of your Creationists please define what a "kind" is

Are you saying that Darwinian evolution takes place but only within this (as yet) completely undefined higher than species but lower than, what? Class?

What stops evolution continuing past the "kind" barrier?

Eventually in the Creationist model a descendant of a "kind" should evolve traits that are so far away from others who descendant from the "kind" that they no long fall into a different class.

'Evolution' is the outworking of the original genetic diversity which was provided to each Kind of living organism at Creation.

'Evolution' is a 'horizontal' or 'downwards' process whereby we get Black Cattle, White Cattle, Horned Cattle, Polled Cattle, Bison and Cape Buffalo that can now reproduce with each other with varying degrees of success......due to genetic isolation/speciation!!!!

The limits of the diversity of the original genetic information in each Kind is what stops evolution continuing past the "kind" barrier.

Some Kinds have genetically diversified to the extent that their resultant species fall into different Genus......for example, Killler Whales and Dolphins belong to the same Created Kind.....but they now belong to a different Genus.

There is not sufficient pre-existing genetic diversity to allow Kinds to evolve into different classes!!!:D

Ciaran500

So how do you define a "kind" then?

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

'Evolution' is the outworking of the original genetic diversity which was provided to each Kind of living organism at Creation.

'Evolution' is a 'horizontal' or 'downwards' process whereby we get Black Cattle, White Cattle, Horned Cattle, Polled Cattle, Bison and Cape Buffalo that can now reproduce with each other with varying degrees of success......due to genetic isolation/speciation!!!!

The limits of the diversity of the original genetic information in each Kind is what stops evolution continuing past the "kind" barrier.

Some Kinds have genetically diversified to the extent that their resultant species fall into different Genus......for example, Killler Whales and Dolphins belong to the same Created Kind.....but they now belong to a different Genus.

Amazingly like the work of a reasonably bright six year-old. The real world is a good deal more complicated than this simple and tidy scheme, but I bet it goes over a bomb in Bible classes.

J C wrote: »

There is not sufficient pre-existing genetic diversity to allow Kinds to evolve into different classes!!!:D

Thank heavens for mutations, then.

leniently,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Ciaran500 wrote: »

So how do you define a "kind" then?

They don't. Each individual Creationist is entirely entitled to decide what seems the same 'kind' to them. JC will probably talk about "baramins" and "baraminology", all of which you can read in about 4 pages.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Ciaran500 wrote: »

So how do you define a "kind" then?

A Kind is a group of the organisms descended from an originally created common ancestor.

BTW, is the Evolutionist in your signature cartoon pointing to his name (Peter) or his IQ (retarded)????:D

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Amazingly like the work of a reasonably bright six year-old. ........

Thank heavens for mutations, then.

leniently,
Scofflaw

...even a six year old would avoid dabbling in mutagenic chemicals and going for unnecessary X-Rays:eek:

......but you believe mutagnesis to be 'heaven sent'.......

.......the strange 'thought processes' of the Evolutionist never cease to amaze me!!!:D

Lovingly,

J C

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

A Kind is a group of the organisms descended from an originally created common ancestor.

Yes, that's the theory. Now, how do you determine what 'kind' something is? How do you determine whether the otter is the same 'kind' as the beaver, or the same 'kind' as the dog?

How far have you got practically with this, in the decades and century since science abandoned the idea?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nerin

...even a six year old would avoid dabbling in mutagenic chemicals and going for unnecessary X-Rays

......but you believe mutagnesis to be 'heaven sent'.......

.......the strange 'thought processes' of the Evolutionist never cease to amaze me!!!

Lovingly,

J C

this comment annoyed the hell outta me! you talk as if (and its probably your intention to do so) mutation is science fiction.
People,yes,human beings,can mutate,and it doesnt have to anything too extreme,it can just be genetic and the like.
So do you think that Mutation is real or fake evolutionist jibber jabber,do you think god could create things,but they arent able to change and mutate???
your answer will really affect how much of your arguements i will take as serious.
Maybe god created that goo your always fond of bringing up in the arguement,and sat back to watch his work unfold.
or is that to disturbing a thought,that god didnt breath life into adam and eve,and thus somehow make christian humans feel less important.

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, that's the theory. Now, how do you determine what 'kind' something is? How do you determine whether the otter is the same 'kind' as the beaver, or the same 'kind' as the dog?

How far have you got practically with this, in the decades and century since science abandoned the idea?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Baraminology is a brand new science that is less than 20 years old!!!

The Beaver and the Otter are the same Created Kind ....... while the Dog and the Pussy Cat are different Kinds!!!:eek::D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

The (ultimate) reason why Lions kill.......other creatures, as well as lion cubs.....is because sin entered the World at the Fall and with sin came death.

What do you mean "sin entered the world"???

"Sin" isn't a thing JC. It is a state, a state of displeasing God, a state in absence of grace, a state that God put the world in himself as punishment for Adam's actions.

Humans sin because God has removed his grace from us. If lions "sin" it is because God has removed his grace from lions as well. Quite why he would do that is anyone's guess, but I'm not quite sure how anyone can argue the lions deserved it.

J C wrote: »

The mistake that you are making is to assume (as Adam and Eve also did) that it is a trivial matter to disobey a command of God.......it can have very serious consequences as Adam and Eve found out to their cost!!!:D

This issue has nothing to do with whether or not it was trivial or not, it is to do with what the be-jebus it has to do with the lions?

The lions didn't do anything The idea that God would punish all life, all human life and non-human life alone, as punishment for Adam's actions is quite horrific to be honest (that idea is also not supported by the Bible by the way, a fact you seem quite happy to completely ignore).

It boggles the mind why you and Wolfsbane would turn to that idea because the theory of evolution is too unpleasant for you. Quite why you find the idea of such a spiteful and mean spirited God appealing I'll probably never understand.

J C wrote: »

'Evolution' is the outworking of the original genetic diversity which was provided to each Kind of living organism at Creation.

'Evolution' is a 'horizontal' or 'downwards' process whereby we get Black Cattle, White Cattle, Horned Cattle, Polled Cattle, Bison and Cape Buffalo that can now reproduce with each other with varying degrees of success......due to genetic isolation/speciation!!!!

The limits of the diversity of the original genetic information in each Kind is what stops evolution continuing past the "kind" barrier.

Some Kinds have genetically diversified to the extent that their resultant species fall into different Genus......for example, Killler Whales and Dolphins belong to the same Created Kind.....but they now belong to a different Genus.

J C wrote: »

There is not sufficient pre-existing genetic diversity to allow Kinds to evolve into different classes!!!

What are talking about?

If members of a "kind" can evolve into a huge number of different species very rapidly (we are talking decades here) as Creationists claim that must mean there a huge amount of diversity taking place due to a huge amount of beneficial mutation, far far far higher mutation rate than any evolutionary biologist would ever state.

Basically for the "kind" theory to be true each species on Earth must be evolving at a ridiculously rapid rate to go from a handful of original species to hundreds of thousands in 6 thousand years.

So the question remains what exactly stops this rapid speciation at the class level?

You can't say there isn't enough genetic diversity. If there wasn't enough genetic diversity this process wouldn't have happened in the first place. You require huge amounts of mutations to get to where we are now in such a short period of time.

Oh and by the way you still haven't defined a "kind"

Ciaran500

J C wrote: »

The Beaver and the Otter are the same Created Kind ....... while the Dog and the Pussy Cat are different Kinds!!!:eek::D

What makes them different "kinds"?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Baraminology is a brand new science that is less than 20 years old!!!

The Beaver and the Otter are the same Created Kind ....... while the Dog and the Pussy Cat are different Kinds!!!:eek::D

Why?

Define the characteristics the define a beaver and an otter as coming from one original kind, but not the dog.

I mean how can you possibly tell that if you haven't first defined what a "kind" is or what attributes the "dog kind" had that are inherited by all descendent of that original kind?

I mean seriously JC, you are just making this stuff up on the spot? What part of this do you expect people to take seriously?

J C

nerin wrote: »

this comment annoyed the hell outta me! you talk as if (and its probably your intention to do so) mutation is science fiction.

Mutation, is (unfortunately) a very real deleterious effect of the Fall!!!

nerin wrote: »

People,yes,human beings,can mutate,and it doesnt have to anything too extreme,it can just be genetic and the like.
So do you think that Mutation is real or fake evolutionist jibber jabber,.

As I have said Mutagenesis IS real.........it's kinda like a hammer.....sometimes it misses your thumb, sometimes it his it 'bang on' and sometimes it clobbers you over the head........so it has little or no effect....or it can be very PAINFUL indeed......either way I would avoid mutagenesis......and I would advise all Evolutionists to also do so!!!!:eek::D

nerin wrote: »

do you think god could create things,but they arent able to change and mutate???
your answer will really affect how much of your arguements i will take as serious.

God provided enormous levels of genetic diversity in the originally created Kinds........and this diversity has allowed their descendant populations to adapt to different and changing environments.:D

nerin wrote: »

Maybe god created that goo your always fond of bringing up in the arguement,and sat back to watch his work unfold.
or is that to disturbing a thought,that god didnt breath life into adam and eve,and thus somehow make christian humans feel less important.

If God produced you from goo via the zoo.....then when He came to write it up in Genesis......He must have forgotten about the 'goo' and the 'zoo' bits!!!!:eek::D

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

Baraminology is a brand new science that is less than 20 years old!!!

The Beaver and the Otter are the same Created Kind ....... while the Dog and the Pussy Cat are different Kinds!!!:eek::D

Now if only the beaver weren't actually a rodent (Order Rodentia) and the otter a weasel (Order Carnivora). Also, such a pity that the cat and dog are also members of the Carnivora - and that all of these relationships are easily provable genetically and morphologically.

Never mind, I'm sure your scheme goes better on a nice children's poster, which seems to be the main thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw