The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Wicknight
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.

Rapid speciation IS indeed observed to occur………but it uses pre-existing genetic diversity….and NOT mutation……which is a largely deleterious phenomenon!!:eek::D


Wicknight
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.

There was much more than 'a handful of original species'.
There probably were many thousands of Created Kinds……and they speciated at a very rapid rate.:D


Wicknight
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.

It WASN’T huge amounts of mutations that got us to where we are now in such a short period of time…..it WAS huge amounts of pre-existing high quality genetic information!!

I never said that there wasn't enough genetic diversity.
Indeed each Created Kind DID have considerable genetic diversity…….but nonetheless they were designed to reproduce ‘after their kind’……..i.e. the Big Cat Kind produced several species of Lions, Tigers, Pumas, Panthers, Jaguars, etc ……and these were ALL species of big cats……
.......and there WASN'T a big dog amongst them!!!!!!:D:)


Originally Posted by Scofflaw
It's not science, it's picture book animal matching.
Wicknight
Never a truer word has been said on this thread

…….about Evolution perhaps??!!!:eek::D


Wicknight
And if you could define a "kind" in the first place then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

The problem is that "kind" is just an abstract idea taken wholesale from the Bible with no proper attempt to scientifically define it. You might as well classify animals into "nice" animals and "smelly" animals.

Now you are just being silly……..

....and I have ALREADY defined a Kind as "a group of organisms descended from an originally created common ancestor.":D


Wicknight

Well I'm pretty sure JC was saying that the lion is killing the cubs because of sin. Are you saying that JC is wrong.

As a side question, if before the Fall nothing died then what did animals eat?
Death entered the World through the sin of Adam and Eve……and Lions kill because death has entered the World.

Lions don’t sin……but they do suffer the effects of Man’s sin ...and because they are under Man’s authority, they therefore suffer from the effects of the Fall.

Before the Fall, ALL animals ate vegetation….. and Gen 1:29-30 confirms this
"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

Indeed Mankind remained vegetarians until after the Flood when Gen 9:3 confirms that they was then allowed to eat meat "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”


2Scoops
Just so we're singing from the same hymn-sheet, have I got this right?
1. Creation Science says evolution is a myth.
2. Natural selection is perfectly ok.
3. Different species arising from a common ancestor (kind) is perfectly ok.

I think the discussion has come a long way.

Creation Science has ALWAYS accepted points 1, 2 and 3.

……perhaps it is the Evolutionist understanding of Creation Science that “has come a long way”!!!!!:eek::D


2Scoops
All that's really left is the whole 6000 years versus a few billion issue. And, at this rate, I'm sure the goalposts will be moved eventually.

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a recent intelligence-based Creation and against 'long ages' spontaneous Evolution......and the defections by Evolutionary Scientists to the Creationist position (but NOT the other way around) is further proof that the Evolutionist argument is effectively LOST!!!:eek::D

With loving Intelligently Designed thoughts,

J C:)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

Creation Science has ALWAYS accepted points 1, 2 and 3.

……perhaps it is the Evolutionist understanding of Creation Science that “has come a long way”!!!!!:eek::D

My memory is fuzzy - didn't you oppose 2 and 3 earlier in this thread. Perhaps I didn't understand you.

J C wrote: »

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a recent Creation and against 'long ages' Evolution.

I, for one, would LOVE to see the overwhelming evidence in favour of recent creation. Perhaps you would be so Kind as to provide it??

J C wrote: »

......and the defections by Evolutionary Scientists to the Creationist position (but NOT the other way around) is further proof that the Evolutionist argument is effectively LOST!!!:eek::D

I imagine that the Creationist position loses quite a few adherents. Creation scientists, on the other hand, have made a very deliberate choice to ignore overwhelming evidence and the fact that they don't return to a evolutionary perspective merely indicates that they are not open to persuasion. Nothing stopping them from dressing up evolution in different names though.

With loving, intelligent thoughts,

2Scoops:)

J C

Originally Posted by 2Scoops
1. Creation Science says evolution is a myth.
2. Natural selection is perfectly ok.
3. Different species arising from a common ancestor (kind) is perfectly ok.

Originally Posted by J C
Creation Science has ALWAYS accepted points 1, 2 and 3.

2Scoops
My memory is fuzzy - didn't you oppose 2 and 3 earlier in this thread.

I have always said that NS exists…….but it merely SELECTS from pre-existing genetic information…..and DOESN’T add any new information.

I have equally always maintained that speciation occurs……but again only within Created Kinds and using pre-existing genetic information!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a recent intelligence-based Creation and against 'long ages' spontaneous Evolution.

2Scoops
I, for one, would LOVE to see the overwhelming evidence in favour of recent creation. Perhaps you would be so Kind as to provide it??

Where do I start??!!!

Firstly, we have organisms alive today whose fossils have been found alongside Dinosaur fossils – which were dated at over 150 million years as a result by Evolutionists!!!!:-.
Some of these creatures were considered extinct contemporaries of Dinosaurs by Evolutionists – until they were discovered to be alive and well:-

These creatures are the so-called ‘living fossils’ – and they include the Coelacanth Fish, that was supposedly extinct for over 100 million years and was found ‘alive and well’ and swimming happily off the coast of Africa in 1938.
Equally, the Wollemi Pine was discovered to be living in a remote canyon in Australia in 1994 - and it was nicknamed the ‘dinosaur tree’ as it had previously been only known from fossils ‘dated’ at around 150 million years old.
The Crocodile is believed by Evolutionists to have remained COMPLETELY UNCHANGED for over 150 million years.
Other living fossils include the Salamander, Turtles, and – and practically every creature living today!!!!

More information on this amazing phenomenon can be found here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4416livingfossil_tree12-25-2000.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/livingfossil.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/salamanders.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/fossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0418turtles.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/livingfossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/fossil.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/fossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/gladiator.asp

…….and National Geographic has even reported a Lamprey that “hasn’t hasn't changed much in 360 million years”:-
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061025-lampreys.html

Obviously these creatures are PROOF that the fossil record is a record of very recent events…..and not millions of years, as Evolutionists would have us believe!!!


Each science discipline provides incontrovertible evidence for a recent Creation as follows:-

1. Geology shows that all fossils are less than c. 7,000 years old with the vast majority of fossils dating from Noah’s Flood 5,000 +/- 500 years ago. The assumption that the millions of so-called “annual micro layers” observed in deep sedimentary rock layers such as the Grand Canyon represented millions of years of sedimentary deposition was disproved during the Mount St Helens volcanic eruption in 1980 when hundreds of thousands of “micro layers” were observed to be laid down in newly formed sedimentary rocks in a matter of HOURS.
Equally, polystrate tree fossils are observed ‘standing up through’ sedimentary rock layers that supposedly took millions of years to lay down – the logical conclusion is that that these layers were laid down rapidly and not over millions of years. It is ridiculous to postulate that a dead tree stood upright for millions of years while slow deposition of sediment gradually buried it. The fact that the ‘bottom’ of the fossilised tree is observed to be as well preserved as the ‘top’ is also a ‘bit of a giveaway’ that very rapid burial took place. Deep sedimentary rock layers therefore do not indicate ‘long ages’ – only a catastrophic worldwide disaster!!!!

Radioactive dating of rocks doesn’t work in PRINCIPLE – because we cannot know what the starting levels of radioactivity were or if further radioactivity was added or taken away (for example, by the differential leaching of the radioactive chemicals such as Potassium) during the ‘life’ of the rock. It also doesn’t work in PRACTICE – because erroneous (very large) ages are routinely obtained from rocks of recent KNOWN ages.


2. Palaeontology shows the sequence in which creatures were killed and buried during Noah’s Flood – seafloor dwelling creatures and flocculated plankton first – all the way up to large land animals and birds, that obviously would be last to ‘succumb to the waves’. The extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (unfossilized) dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in supposedly multiple million year old amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed. If these bones / insects were, in fact, millions of years old, all biological material in them would have completely degenerated by now. The observed rates of biological degeneration under such conditions would give maximal ages of a few thousand years for these bones / insects.
The list of species in the so-called Geological Column represents the order of their catastrophic burial and it is NOT a record of their supposed evolution.

Equally, using collections of animal and plant fossils to ‘date’ a rock on the basis of Evolutionary assumptions in relation to the assumed position of these creatures in the ‘Evolutionary Tree’ is only valid if Evolution (and its Tree) are scientifically valid. It is actually an example of circular reasoning in action.
Strata, which hold the same collection of fossils, could indicate that these creatures were buried during the same stage of the Flood Event for a number of reasons including their physical location in the Biosphere or the place where they gathered together before being drowned. It could also be related to their size, shape or hydrodynamic characteristics.
3. Taxonomy shows the CURRENT biological relationships among species that have arisen through speciation processes acting on the original created Kinds.
Evolution explains nothing more than the scientifically valid phenomena of Natural Selection and speciation…….. and this isn’t contested by Creation Scientists.


2Scoops
I imagine that the Creationist position loses quite a few adherents. Creation scientists, on the other hand, have made a very deliberate choice to ignore overwhelming evidence and the fact that they don't return to an evolutionary perspective merely indicates that they are not open to persuasion. Nothing stopping them from dressing up evolution in different names though

WHY would Evolutionists, who become Creationists, ALL suddenly start ignoring evidence and closing their minds??……when they have already PROVEN that they are ‘open minded’ and willing to change their minds by switching from Evolution to Creationism in the first place?!!!:)

It is the Evolutionists who close their minds and 'hang on' grimly to Evolution, despite all of the evidence ……in order to bolster their faith in materialism!!!!

It would be true that up to the 1960’s both lay people and scientists were abandoning Creationism in favour of Evolution………but this has all changed utterly ……and the movement from Creationism to Evolution has come to a shuddering HALT……..while defections from Evolution to Creationism are now very significant amongst BOTH scientists and lay people!!!!:eek::D


2Scoops
With loving, intelligent thoughts,

Intelligently EXPRESSED thoughts ARE intelligently DESIGNED thoughts………and, could I suggest that the reason that you are refusing to accept the intelligent design of your OWN thoughts ……..is because you are in denial of the fact that you were ALSO intelligently designed …..by God!!

robindch

JC wrote:

Evolution explains nothing more than the scientifically valid phenomena of Natural Selection and speciation…….. and this isn’t contested by Creation Scientists.

JC converts to Evolution(ism). Again.

It's quarter to three. We should have a u-turn by this evening.

pH

J C wrote: »

I have always said that NS exists…….but it merely SELECTS from pre-existing genetic information…..and DOESN’T add any new information.

I have equally always maintained that speciation occurs……but again only within Created Kinds and using pre-existing genetic information!!!:D

This is a claim you have repeatedly made and never justified, by never explaining information content and how one would measure it. We know that the genetic information for life is stored in a string that can be represented by 4 letters: GTAC.

If you wish to make the claim that mutation doesn't add genetic information then this could easily be proved - measure the information 'content' of a DNA string, and show that no mutation (insertion, substitution or deletion) could possibly result in a DNA segment with more information, but for some strange reason you can definitively make the claim that 'mutations never add information without specifying how you measure the information content!

I could try and pin you down on this, but perhaps the best thing to do is to show that logically what you're talking about is nonsense

Axioms:

I - No matter what your definition of 'information content' is - you must accept that there are mutations that cause a loss of information - if you do not accept this point then I'm sure that a quick proof could be provided - for example continual deletions from something with 'information content' must at some stage decrease the information content.

II -Given the types of mutation (Insertion/Substitution/Deletion) any mutation is reversible (by an opposite action) - if you do not agree with this then provide an example of a mutation (using insertions / deletions /substitutions) than is not reversible by another mutations (using insertions / deletions / substitutions)

Proof

Given you accept I & II, I'm sure you see where this is going,
There exists a String of DNA (let's call it X) with known and measureable information content

There exists a mutation m() which mutates X to X' - X' having less information content than X

For mutation m() there exists another mutation m'() which reverses m() such that while m(X) = X' ; m'(X') = X

Therefore there are 2 DNA strings (X and X') - X having more information content than X', and a mutation m'() which converts X' to X -

=> mutation m'() increases the information content when applied to X'

Therefore whatever your definition of information content, it is trivial to show that if mutations can lower the information content then they can also increase it.

The only possible situation would be one in which you can show that there exist particular non-reversible mutations, or show that mutations no mutation can ever change the information content at all (increase or decrease)

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

This is a claim you have repeatedly made and never justified, by never explaining information content and how one would measure it. We know that the genetic information for life is stored in a string that can be represented by 4 letters: GTAC.

If you wish to make the claim that mutation doesn't add genetic information then this could easily be proved - measure the information 'content' of a DNA string, and show that no mutation (insertion, substitution or deletion) could possibly result in a DNA segment with more information, but for some strange reason you can definitively make the claim that 'mutations never add information without specifying how you measure the information content!

I could try and pin you down on this, but perhaps the best thing to do is to show that logically what you're talking about is nonsense

Axioms:

I - No matter what your definition of 'information content' is - you must accept that there are mutations that cause a loss of information - if you do not accept this point then I'm sure that a quick proof could be provided - for example continual deletions from something with 'information content' must at some stage decrease the information content.

II -Given the types of mutation (Insertion/Substitution/Deletion) any mutation is reversible (by an opposite action) - if you do not agree with this then provide an example of a mutation (using insertions / deletions /substitutions) than is not reversible by another mutations (using insertions / deletions / substitutions)

Proof

Given you accept I & II, I'm sure you see where this is going,
There exists a String of DNA (let's call it X) with known and measureable information content

There exists a mutation m() which mutates X to X' - X' having less information content than X

For mutation m() there exists another mutation m'() which reverses m() such that while m(X) = X' ; m'(X') = X

Therefore there are 2 DNA strings (X and X') - X having more information content than X', and a mutation m'() which converts X' to X -

=> mutation m'() increases the information content when applied to X'

Therefore whatever your definition of information content, it is trivial to show that if mutations can lower the information content then they can also increase it.

The only possible situation would be one in which you can show that there exist particular non-reversible mutations, or show that mutations no mutation can ever change the information content at all (increase or decrease)

Excellent!

applauding,
Scofflaw

J C

pH wrote: »

This is a claim you have repeatedly made and never justified, by never explaining information content and how one would measure it. We know that the genetic information for life is stored in a string that can be represented by 4 letters: GTAC.

If you wish to make the claim that mutation doesn't add genetic information then this could easily be proved - measure the information 'content' of a DNA string, and show that no mutation (insertion, substitution or deletion) could possibly result in a DNA segment with more information, but for some strange reason you can definitively make the claim that 'mutations never add information without specifying how you measure the information content!

I could try and pin you down on this, but perhaps the best thing to do is to show that logically what you're talking about is nonsense

Axioms:

I - No matter what your definition of 'information content' is - you must accept that there are mutations that cause a loss of information - if you do not accept this point then I'm sure that a quick proof could be provided - for example continual deletions from something with 'information content' must at some stage decrease the information content.

II -Given the types of mutation (Insertion/Substitution/Deletion) any mutation is reversible (by an opposite action) - if you do not agree with this then provide an example of a mutation (using insertions / deletions /substitutions) than is not reversible by another mutations (using insertions / deletions / substitutions)

Proof

Given you accept I & II, I'm sure you see where this is going,
There exists a String of DNA (let's call it X) with known and measureable information content

There exists a mutation m() which mutates X to X' - X' having less information content than X

For mutation m() there exists another mutation m'() which reverses m() such that while m(X) = X' ; m'(X') = X

Therefore there are 2 DNA strings (X and X') - X having more information content than X', and a mutation m'() which converts X' to X -

=> mutation m'() increases the information content when applied to X'

Therefore whatever your definition of information content, it is trivial to show that if mutations can lower the information content then they can also increase it.

The only possible situation would be one in which you can show that there exist particular non-reversible mutations, or show that mutations no mutation can ever change the information content at all (increase or decrease)

Could I point out that reversing a mutation is almost invariably the result of the cellular 'auto-correction' systems undoing the damage caused by the original mutation......which is the equivalent of a computer backup and rebooting systems which is itself also intellligently designed!!!:D

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Excellent!

applauding,
Scofflaw

In your enthusiasm, you appear to have forgotten that the hypothetical 'information route' from simple molecules to Man requires vast quantities of precise functional information......and processes that switch on and off mutagenic effects can NEVER provide this NEW specified information!!!:eek::D

With loving concern

J C:)

Nerin

lol, i know its wikipedia,but sure its as good a place as any for you to look up jc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

J C

Originally Posted by JC
Evolution explains nothing more than the scientifically valid phenomena of Natural Selection and speciation…….. and this isn’t contested by Creation Scientists.

robindch wrote: »

JC converts to Evolution(ism). Again.

It's quarter to three. We should have a u-turn by this evening.

Where is the U-turn?

I have always (and I continue to) maintain that NS and Speciation are scientifically valid phenomena .....and they both utilise pre-existing genetic information and intelligently designed processes.......whereas Evolutionists claim that they are spontaneous phenomena driven by mutagenesis.:D

The understandable (and correct) reluctance of Evolutionists to undergo mutagenesis themselves proves that their faith in Evolution may not be as strong as they generally claim it to be!!!:eek::D

Nerin

The understandable (and correct) reluctance of Evolutionists to undergo mutagenesis themselves proves that their faith in Evolution may not be as strong as they generally claim it to be!!!

why cant you,as a religious person,acknowledge the possibility instead that maybe your god created the world in a way that would lead to evolution etc
or are you against other ideas like humans werent always the way we are because the bible says so?
that cult that believes we were an alien science experiment starts to sound less crazy everytime someone says something isnt true because the bible says so

J C

nerin wrote: »

lol, i know its wikipedia,but sure its as good a place as any for you to look up jc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Can I then quote the first example of mutation cited in your above referenced article:-
"For example, a butterfly may produce offspring with a new mutation. Many times new mutations are harmful; a new mutation might change the color of one of the butterfly's offspring, making it harder (or easier) for predators to see. If this color change is an advantage, the chances of this butterfly surviving and producing its own offspring are a little better, and over time the number of butterflies with this mutation may form a larger percentage of the population."

Please note the following:-

Firstly, we started with a Butterfly.....and we ended with a Butterfly (and apparently even of the same species)!!!

Secondly, the differences in wing pigmentation was due to pre-existing genetic diversity within the butterfly population!!!

This reminds me of the story about the grey/brown 'tree moths' which didn't live in trees but did come in grey and brown varieties!!!:D

Could I point out that just because Moths have grey and brown wings.....and Humans have black and red hair......proves NOTHING about how either creature came to be here, in the first place!!!!:eek::D

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm, would that not suggest to you kind covers a huge group of species?

You seem to be getting a bit confused with your own theory.

According to Biblical Creationists all life on Earth is derived from a handful of kind species (2 of each species, male and female) that were on the Ark.

Define the characteristics of each of these original kind species. For example JC claims that weasles and dogs all came from the same kind. So therefore define the characteristics of this original species.

Even better, produce a fossil of it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I can say that the common ancestor of the horse and zebra looked basically like them, not like a lion.

How exactly can you say that? Define "looked like" in a bit more detail. What are where the structural characteristics of this original "horse-zebra" kind.

Even better produce a fossil of it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You need to define what you mean by handful. Certainly not half a dozen. Likely to be in the thousands.

Handful relative to the hundreds of thousands of species we find today (and finding even more each year).

wolfsbane wrote: »

See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/speciation.asp

That doesn't actually answer the question I put forward.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Has it stopped? http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp

[/quote]

Neither does that.

Perhaps it would be easier if you explained it to me directly

Nerin

Could I point out that the fact that Moths have grey and brown wings.....and Humans have black and red hair......proves NOTHING about how either creature came to be in the first place!!!!

yes,you may point that out.
and again you may say something silly like this to try and disprove evolution and prove creationism. but the more silly comments like this,the less respect creationism gets.

oh well.


Youre not seeing the bigger picture, and i'd say its safe to assume you arent seeing it on purpose

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

In your enthusiasm, you appear to have forgotten that the hypothetical 'information route' from simple molecules to Man requires vast quantities of precise functional information......and processes that switch on and off mutagenic effects can NEVER provide this NEW specified information!!!:eek::D

Well, no, JC, because as usual you are looking the wrong way through the telescope - seeing evolution as having to produce this or that mutation in order to get here. I also think it would be worth your while trying to understand what pH is saying, which you clearly don't as yet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

nerin wrote: »

why cant you,as a religious person,acknowledge the possibility instead that maybe your god created the world in a way that would lead to evolution etc
or are you against other ideas like humans werent always the way we are because the bible says so?
that cult that believes we were an alien science experiment starts to sound less crazy everytime someone says something isnt true because the bible says so

What God says about His Creation in the Bible IS important.....and He said that He Created it all in six days.:)

However, for the more empirically minded......ALL of the physical evidence ALSO points to a massive intelligent input into the creation of living organisms.:D

Ironically, the 'alien invasion' people have got it half right......they just don't acknowledge the correct intelligence who did the Creating......the Materialists are wrong on on both counts by failing to conclude .....that life was intelligently designed.....and that it only evolved within Created Kinds!!!:eek::D

Nerin

lol how'd i know you'd say theyre wrong hahaha
ok JC,i'll try explain to you, anytime someone posts a comment that has an argument for evolution,you look at it the wrong way,or sum it up in ridiculous terms so that its cast aside or what have you.

now im sure if i was to do the same with your religious theories you'd be very unhappy and might even cry "ban".

hence why i've more respect and more logic here.

yours,tiring of arguments verging on the ridiculous

Nerin

pH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, no, JC, because as usual you are looking the wrong way through the telescope - seeing evolution as having to produce this or that mutation in order to get here. I also think it would be worth your while trying to understand what pH is saying, which you clearly don't as yet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Alas, as usual all we prove over and over is that you can't fight bible quotations, CAPSLOCK and SM:mad:L:cool:ES with logic.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
Could I point out that the fact that Moths have grey and brown wings.....and Humans have black and red hair......proves NOTHING about how either creature came to be in the first place!!!!

nerin wrote: »

yes,you may point that out.
and again you may say something silly like this to try and disprove evolution and prove creationism. but the more silly comments like this,the less respect creationism gets.

oh well.


Youre not seeing the bigger picture, and i'd say its safe to assume you arent seeing it on purpose

What is the 'big picture' conclusion to be drawn from a family with both red haired and black haired children.....other than the fact that TWO parents can have the pre-existing genetic information diversity to produce BOTH red and black haired children!!!!!

......and, as I have already said, it proves NOTHING about the ultimate origins of Man......but it does prove that significant genetic diversity can exist within only TWO genomes, and their interactions.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Religious morality powerfully deters religious people from crime. Not absolutely, but powerfully.

I see no evidence of that assertion, and history strongly disagrees with you.

TBH it seems more like wishful thinking on your part Wolfsbane than any actual proper assessment of religion as moral foundation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Exactly, the atheist concept of morality applies to no one but those who want it.

Neither does God's concept of morality. I certainly don't follow your religions morality. You can say I'm still going to get punished by God, but then the rapist is still going to get punished by society. But in neither case is the morality accepted.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't need to be God to correctly understand what He says.

No, you need to be a god yourself to know for certain that you do correctly understand what He says.

Otherwise you are simply working on your interpretation, and you cannot know that this interpretation is actually correct. For all you know the devil has been talking to you. For all you know you have completely missed the point of one of the key Bible verses and you have been doing the majority of stuff from. For all you know you should be a Catholic.

At the end of the day you criticise atheist morality saying that it is invalid because none of us can know for certain if we are right or wrong.

But then you don't know if you are right or wrong in your interpretation of God. That doesn't seem to make you throw your hands up and say "Well my interpretation is as invalid as anyone elses"

wolfsbane wrote: »

He has made the essentials clear enough so that I will understand.

You don't know that. You assume it, but then you have nothing to actually base that assumption on except more assumptions (you assume he would make the basics clear enough to understand, so you assume that it must be basic to understand)

wolfsbane wrote: »

I claim no authority for my interpretation. The Word itself has the authority.

Of course you claim authority for your interpretation. You just made a number of authoritive statements. He makes the essentials clear. Says who exactly? Why, you of course? Authoritive statement right there.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not the biological theory of evolution. That is specific to the biosphere. But even it is depends on what happened previously.

The theory does not depend on what has previously happened.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I seem to recall the Big Bang, starlight and time, etc. being debated.

Not in relation to any "theory of evolution"

wolfsbane wrote: »

See how you jump from one side to the other? What led to the first life does not matter - so the theory of evolution can be discussed as a stand alone.
But when it comes to the theory of creation, it must be ruled out as its' idea of what happen before the first life is supernatural.

What am I dealing with - lack of logic or presence of hypocrisy? I will assume the former.

Are you being difficult on purpose or do you actually not get this?

As regard to the theory of biological evolution the process that started the first replicating systems on Earth doesn't matter.

That does not mean it doesn't matter to science in general. It does of course matter to science but (and this is the important bit so please pay attention) it is dealt with with OTHER THEORIES

How the theory/model of Darwinian biological evolution functions does not depend on how the first molecules started to replicate in the first place, or where the atoms of these molecules came from in the first place.

Now (and again this is important so please pay attention), supernatural guessing (and it is just guessing BTW) is not used in ANY area of science because it is untestable and unfalsifiable.

It is not used in the theory of evolution and it is not used in ANY OTHER THEORY either, including the theories about how the atoms form or how the very first molecules started to replicate.

It is utterly pointless saying that something may have a supernatural origin, because it is utterly impossible to test that idea. So how would you know what actually happened?

Saying well I read it in my Bible it pointless. There are 1001 other religions that will claim it happened differently. You can't demonstrate that your religious guess is any more accurate than any other religious guess.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It would not be for them, but it is for him. He is behaving consistently with his beliefs.

Yes, but so am I when I say rapists should be locked in jail. Yet you claim that this is not a logical position to take, because the rapist will have a different idea of morality. So basically you aren't making any sense when you say "logically"

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the key point I'm making is that objective morality is not self-consistent with atheism. I think you have conceded that

I have "conceded" that (I don't ever remember claiming otherwise)

The point you seem to be ignoring is that it objective morality doesn't hold if God exists either.

Objective morality doesn't apply in either of our cases. My morality isn't objective, neither is yours and neither is Gods. They are all subjective.

wolfsbane wrote: »

indicating that there is no such thing as a morality that anyone need feel bound to keep

You keep saying that but I don't understand why, since you have been told that it doesn't hold.

A person can feel bound to keep a system of morality if they decide it is a morality they wish to keep. That applies to the both of you

You are not bound to keep God's morality. Your own religion teaches that you have the free will to reject that morality if you so wish. You will get punished by God for doing so, but that doesn't make you keep it in the sense that it makes you agree. If you don't agree you only keep it to avoid being punished.

The exact same system applies in humanistic society. I can't make anyone agree with societies collective morality. I can try and convince them, but if they don't agree I can't force them to change the inner workings of their mind. But they will still be punished by societies morality.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is just that you can't be consistent with it and atheism, unless you acknowledge your morality is artificial and applies only to you and only for as long as you want it to. I think you are saying that?

In the same way as God, it applies to anyone that I have the physical power to make it apply to. Society has the physical power to make a collective morality apply to people through the legal and police systems.

wolfsbane wrote: »

In Subjective morality, raping one's neighbour is only wrong for those who hold it to be so. In objective morality, it is so no matter who agrees or disagrees.

But what is "wrong" in the first place except someones assessment.

Even in your system it is ultimately God's assessment. But that is still subjective, subjective to his assessment.

You really seem to be having trouble with that point

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems perfectly logical to me.

Well to be honest I'm not surprised because you don't have a great history of actually understanding the paradox of God.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to the wider Scripture, there are certainly things that are mysterious - but I can't think of any that are illogical. I'm open to suggestions.

It was illogical of God to send his son to be used as payment for a debt that he himself wanted to collect. He basically paid himself off with something he already had, ie himself. That is the high of illogical.

It would be like you breaking one of my windows, me going "Wolfsbane I'm so mad at you, I'm going to have to break one of your windows to settle the score".

You then go "Oh please don't, please!"

I go "Oh ok, I won't break one of my windows. But someone has to pay for this debt. I know, I will break another one of my windows!" Smash "Now, one window was broken, and to settle the score another window was broke"

After a while I realise that I've broken 2 windows when it would have been a lot more logical to simply leave it at the first one.

The idea that someone can settle a score owed to them by damaging another bit of their property is utter nonsense, yet billions of Christians believe that is what God did with Jesus. Jesus was God breaking a second window to settle the score for the first of his windows that was broken (The Fall of Man). Completely unnecessary.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It does not matter what I say. It is what He says that establishes that His opinion carries more weight than your's.

Yes Wolfsbane but you are saying that. You are telling me right now that this is true. That is your opinion. That is your interpretation. You could be wrong. You don't believe you are, but without being a god yourself you cannot know for certain that this holds.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Fire burns wood. Is that because I say it does? Or because it does, no matter what I say?

No you think fire burns wood. That is a scientific assessment you have made based on evidence and observation and the formation of a model of the natural process that is happening.

In reality you don't actually know for certain that that is what is happen. For thousands of years humans actually didn't understand what was happening at all, and there were some very interesting ideas as to the nature of "fire"

You are getting into the philosophy of science. You can't know something for certain. That is the nature of our reality. Anyone who thinks they know something for certain in a scientific sense is actually simply deluding themselves.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You contradict yourself: a person cannot give themselves that right vs
A king gives himself authority. But perhaps you meant cannot morally give themselves that right?

You can't immorally give yourself a right. That contradicts the definition of "right"

You can certainly do the same thing as someone who does have the right to do it, but that is not the same thing.

For example in America they believe that the State has the right to kill dangerous criminals. That doesn't mean someone who kills a dangerous criminal outside of the legal system gives themselves that right. They are carrying out the same action, but they do not have the right automatically given to them because of that.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But how does that apply to God, the creator and sustainer of all? Is He just one of us, depending on us for any power He may exercise? Not the God revealed in the Bible:

What do you mean not the God revealed in the Bible? Who wrote the Bible? God!

Man you love the cyclical reasoning don't you Wolfsbane.

If God has no right to absolute athority over us then the rules in the Bible don't have absolute authority over us, so stop quoting the Bible as justification for God having absolute authority over us.

THe Bible only holds authority if one already holds that God has absolute authority. Therefore it is illogical to use the Bible as justification for God holding absolute authority over us.

Man how many times do we have to go over that? The Bible cannot be the justification for God's authority, because without God's authority already in place the Bible has no authority.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If God is who He says He is, then His authority is universal.

Only if you decide it is. It is not a given simply by him existing. Just because God says in the Bible "I am absolute authority" doesn't mean he is actually absolute authority.

Its like the classic conundrum of the person saying "I am not a liar"

There are two possibilities. One he isn't a liar, in which case the statement is true. And two, he is a liar in which case he is lying about not being a liar.

You cannot take the statement from the person himself as support for the truth of the statement.

If God declares, in the Bible, that he is absoluste authority that statement is only true if he is actually absolute authority. But one cannot take the statement itself as support for the truth of the statement.

God could be lying (and please think before you reply "The Bible says God doesn't lie :rolleyes:)

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems to me it is the logical conclusion

Well TBH Wolfsbane after an entire post of cyclical reasoning I'm not sure you know what a logical conclusion is to start with.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

I see no evidence of that assertion, and history strongly disagrees with you.

Heck, even you disagree with you, unless you're prepared to assert that the influence of religious morality on history has been minimal.

Wicknight wrote: »

wolfsbane wrote:

He has made the essentials clear enough so that I will understand.

You don't know that. You assume it, but then you have nothing to actually base that assumption on except more assumptions (you assume he would make the basics clear enough to understand, so you assume that it must be basic to understand)

Unless wolfsbane is more intelligent than nearly every Christian that ever lived, such an assertion simply falls down in the face of the vast number of competing interpretations of Christian essentials.

Wicknight wrote: »

wolfsbane wrote:

Not the biological theory of evolution. That is specific to the biosphere. But even it is depends on what happened previously.

As regard to the theory of biological evolution the process that started the first replicating systems on Earth doesn't matter.

How the theory/model of Darwinian biological evolution functions does not depend on how the first molecules started to replicate in the first place, or where the atoms of these molecules came from in the first place.

If we created life entirely from scratch (which we are not so far from doing), we would expect to find evolution happening to it. Evolution does not depend on the previous development of the world in any way. That's why theistic evolution from an initial Creation is a tenable position.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

nerin wrote: »

lol how'd i know you'd say theyre wrong hahaha
ok JC,i'll try explain to you, anytime someone posts a comment that has an argument for evolution,you look at it the wrong way,or sum it up in ridiculous terms so that its cast aside or what have you.

now im sure if i was to do the same with your religious theories you'd be very unhappy and might even cry "ban".

hence why i've more respect and more logic here.

yours,tiring of arguments verging on the ridiculous

Nerin

I have spoken the truth with love......and you have the opportunity to correct me IF I am wrong.:)


.....and no, I wouldn't 'ban' you for questioning my faith position......it is only those with a weak faith who need to 'ban' their opponents views!!!:D

....and the argument that is 'verging on the ridiculous' is the one that claims the specified functional complexity of the Human Genome could arise spontaneously......and you know it!!!:eek::D

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

If we created life entirely from scratch (which we are not so far from doing), we would expect to find evolution happening to it. Evolution does not depend on the previous development of the world in any way. That's why theistic evolution from an initial Creation is a tenable position.

cordially,
Scofflaw

IF we created some form of 'life' all that would prove is that enormous intelligently directed effort is required to create life .....which kinda invalidates the hypothesis that it can spontaneously generate!!!:eek::D

Theistic Evolution explains the Intelligent Design of life .......but it isn't supported by the Bible......

......and it isn't supported by the physical evidence which indicates a recent Creation of multiple perfect Kinds!!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

IF we created some form of 'life' all that would prove is that enormous intelligently directed effort is required to create life .....which kinda invalidates the hypothesis that it can spontaneously generate!!!:eek::D

Theistic Evolution explains the Intelligent Design of life .......but it isn't supported by the Bible......

......and it isn't supported by the physical evidence which indicates a recent Creation of multiple perfect Kinds!!!!:D

You may have utterly missed the point there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Worth a read - quite a balanced article on Creationist geologists. I expect, of course, some less than balanced comments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heck, even you disagree with you, unless you're prepared to assert that the influence of religious morality on history has been minimal.

I'm not sure I follow. I think you are talking about something different, talking about how religious morality shapes the morality of the state. We aren't really discussing that, we are discussing ones own internal morality.

If Wolfsbane's assertion is correct then societies largely made up of religious people should have much less need for society based systems of justice, such as police, because everyone will be following their own internal conscience out of either respect for God or fear of God.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unless wolfsbane is more intelligent than nearly every Christian that ever lived, such an assertion simply falls down in the face of the vast number of competing interpretations of Christian essentials.

True.

As I said, without being a god himself Wolfsbane can't know for certain that his interpretation is correct. That doesn't of course stop him from believing that it is.

Scofflaw wrote: »

If we created life entirely from scratch (which we are not so far from doing), we would expect to find evolution happening to it. Evolution does not depend on the previous development of the world in any way. That's why theistic evolution from an initial Creation is a tenable position.

And its why evolution can be applied to other areas, such as genetic programming. It is a process that acts upon replicating units. These replicating units can be biological molecules or they can be software objects in a computer. It doesn't matter to the process, the theory of the process is the same.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow. I think you are talking about something different, talking about how religious morality shapes the morality of the state. We aren't really discussing that, we are discussing ones own internal morality.

If Wolfsbane's assertion is correct then societies largely made up of religious people should have much less need for society based systems of justice, such as police, because everyone will be following their own internal conscience out of either respect for God or fear of God.

Ah - I probably wasn't clear at all there: even wolfsbane disagrees with wolfsbane, since he we know from other posts that he believes the majority of human history consists of exactly the kind of things religious morality is supposed to prevent, despite the existence of religious morality. That leaves him the out of claiming that very few people are genuinely religious, of course, but that makes his contention completely unprovable.

Wicknight wrote: »

And its why evolution can be applied to other areas, such as genetic programming. It is a process that acts upon replicating units. These replicating units can be biological molecules or they can be software objects in a computer. It doesn't matter to the process, the theory of the process is the same.

It's a fundamentally mathematical process:

random variation + selection = evolution

Doesn't matter what system you apply it to, or whether the selection process is intelligently designed or not - you still get evolution. Even JC doesn't argue that - and since wolfsbane has always taken JC's word as a scientist, I would expect no less of him now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah - I probably wasn't clear at all there: even wolfsbane disagrees with wolfsbane, since he we know from other posts that he believes the majority of human history consists of exactly the kind of things religious morality is supposed to prevent, despite the existence of religious morality. That leaves him the out of claiming that very few people are genuinely religious, of course, but that makes his contention completely unprovable.

Right, I get you now.

Either his assertion doesn't hold, or the vast vast majority of people throughout history weren't actually religious at all, in which case claims about the assertion don't hold because we don't have enough to go on.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a fundamentally mathematical process:

random variation + selection = evolution

Well put. I suppose to be complete it would be

replicating units + variation + selection = Darwinian evolution of replicating units

Scofflaw wrote: »

Doesn't matter what system you apply it to, or whether the selection process is intelligently designed or not - you still get evolution. Even JC doesn't argue that

I find it highly amusing that JC claims all life on Earth adapts and changes due to variation in the genetic replication of the life form, but refuses to call that "evolution" He claims it doesn't use mutation and therefore isn't evolution. While never actually bothering to explain what it does use (beyond vague claims of pre-existing genetic diversity, another nonsense concept), he seems ignorant of the fact that Darwinian evolution doesn't have to use mutation. Any change in the genetic code facilitates evolution, it is simply that mutation is the most dramatic. But if a black woman and a white man produce a "mixed race" (hate that term) skinned baby, that is as much evolution as a mutation.

As someone else pointed out JC (and one assumes by proxy Wolfsbane) is an evolutionists in all but name, since his theories of a handful of "kinds" turning into hundreds of thousands of species requires evolution to take place on a massive massive scale in a ridiculously short period of time.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Well I'm pretty sure JC was saying that the lion is killing the cubs because of sin. Are you saying that JC is wrong.

I'm pretty sure JC is not ascribing sin to the lion.

As a side question, if before the Fall nothing died then what did animals eat?

Plants (they have no spirit, no breath of life).

And the lion kills the cubs of other lions when he enters the pride because ... ?

He is moved to maintain his own lineage, even at the expense of others. This of course is not a rational choice, but an instinctive one. It is a fallen instinctive behaviour, however, not one that the lions had before man's fall.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We humans are inheritors of Adam's nature: no one has to teach us to sin, we just naturally lie, steal, kill, etc.

Yes, as God created us .. oh wait ... no that doesn't work I'm afraid. God created us in his image. Are you saying it is God's image to lie steal and kill?

No, you are confused about the sequence of events. God did not create Adam with a fallen nature. Adam sinned and it is that sinful nature that passed on to us.

God is not angry at the animals yet he made them our subjects to suffer with us? Really? That makes sense to you?

No, again you need to re-read the sequence of events. God made the animals subject to us before man sinned. When man fell, all that he had suffered witn him.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You need One who can save you from your sins and from their eternal consequences, Wickie.

No, I need you to define what a "kind" is ....

I already did so. Seems you want to remain blind to that also.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

I probably skipped over something I considered obvious. The rule of law didn't fall from the sky (not a dig!) - society after society has invented it and implemented it, for themselves.



Exactly - "men band together as a society to do it". Every single time, in every part of the world. The laws produced are often summary, but that usually reflects the resources available for it. Importantly, the rule of law breaks down whenever it is opposed by the majority - proving that it is not so opposed the rest of the time, which hardly sits well with the idea that men are naturally evil.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Why do the majority of a society support the rule of law (most of the time)? Because it suits them. Most are vunerable to the threats anarchy would bring.

Does this mean man is not naturally evil? Of coursre not, just that he is naturally interested in his own survival (and rightly so). The proof of his naturally evil nature lies in what he would do if he could avoid punishment. Would he then be as keen to submit himself to the law? Or would he take the opportunity to be the law?