Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
If they are appealing to divine revelation, they would indeed offer an absolute morality. As it appears to be the work of an atheist/atheists, it will be just another example of subjective morality.
There's nothing there to suggest the work of atheists. In fact, Wikipedia (yes, the Wikipedia
) thinks it was built by a masonic order with Christian origins.
What's so bad about subjective morality anyway? It got us this far, one could argue.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
There's nothing there to suggest the work of atheists. In fact, Wikipedia (yes, the Wikipedia) thinks it was built by a masonic order with Christian origins.
What's so bad about subjective morality anyway? It got us this far, one could argue.
Indeed, if atheists are correct, then wolfsbane's "absolute" Biblical morality is also a human invention - which, from our perspective, proves that humanity is certainly capable of inventing a morality which is "perfect".wolfsbane wrote:An interesting news bite from AiG back in 1998:
Desmond King-Hele, a fellow of the Royal Society, has published a new biography of Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin.
In it he argues not only that Erasmus had already published a theory of evolution in his 1794 book Zoonomia, but had set forth therein the idea of natural selection. Indeed, Darwin had read Erasmus’ book at age 18.
King-Hele claims that Darwin’s father actively encouraged Charles to have ‘skepticism toward religion and a belief in evolution.’ He says, ‘Evolution was the family faith.’
The Sunday Times (London), 13 July 1997.
This is one more refutation of the popular myth of Darwin as the unbiased naturalist who stumbled across evolution by observing ‘the facts of nature.’
And in respect of that book:there’s a touch of defiance in the book’s full title: Erasmus Darwin: A Life of Unequalled Achievement. That’s because almost everything on that list comes with a caveat of one kind or another. For example, many of them are based on a few lines or a quick sketch appearing in his Commonplace Book or in one of his letters
Is this the best you can do in the way of backing up your claim that the Theory of Evolution was "invented" by "atheists"? Really, wolfsbane, you will need to do a good deal better, particularly considering the known religious leanings of not only Darwin but many early champions of the theory.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Depeche_Mode wrote: »Firstly there is no such thing as Creation Science, because it is not a science, it is pseudoscience through and through.
ALL Creation Scientists are CONVENTIONAL scientists qualified from CONVENTIONAL universities.
Many STILL sit on peer-review committees in these Universities.
Peer review is also ongoing in Creation Science itself ......so Creation Science IS a valid scientific discipline.Depeche_Mode wrote: »Secondly it would also be a prediction of Creationism that inbreeding occured from the children of the original two people.
It is a contention of Creation Science that the originally created Humans were perfectly 'out-bred' ......and therefore the early generations of Mankind were also highly 'out-bred'......even with closely related marriages.
There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any significant danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is the main historical reason for banning incest among consenting adults).
Genetic disorders from mutations have greatly increased since then, and a Law was given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.
Incest between consenting adults is now, sinful…….and genetically risky……but marriage by close cousins is still legally allowed by both church and state ……..but it is also increasingly genetically risky.......and Creation Scientists have therefore ALWAYS maintained that close relatives shouldn't marry!!
HOWEVER, some Evolutionists including Darwin himself actually advocated and / or practiced inbreeding!!!!:D
Darwin observed that pigeons from many different regions of Europe possessed accentuated and varying characteristics. He postulated correctly that an historical phenomenon of inbreeding had occurred. He then postulated, again correctly, that inbreeding was the cause of specializing of strains. He further continued, this time with error, by saying that inbreeding was good, especially among superior specimens.
Darwin lived as he taught. He taught inbreeding, and he inbred HIMSELF.:D:eek:
He considered himself to be superior. He also considered his wealthy first cousin, Emma Wedgwood, another grandchild of the famous potter, Josiah Wedgwood, to be superior. He proposed. She accepted. They brought ten children into the world.
Darwin presumed that if two "superior" humans who were closely related were mated, the chances for markedly superior offspring would be excellent.!!!!!:eek:
And as it happened, of his ten children, one girl died shortly after birth, another, the much-beloved Annie, died in childhood, his youngest son, Charles, lived only two years, Henrietta had a serious and prolonged breakdown at fifteen, and three sons suffered such frequent illness that Darwin regarded them as semi-invalids.
From Darwin's letters and manuscript, Notebook on Transmutation of Species, it can be concluded that Charles and Emma, at their wedding breakfast, discussed such romantic subjects as inbreeding of animals, inbreeding of plants, transmutation of species, mating like with like, and never planting cauliflower and turnips which are unlike, in the same garden patch.
It is also obvious that neither Darwin nor his first cousin Emma knew what they were talking about!!!
Darwin not only advocated inbreeding for himself; he also encouraged others to do so.
When his youngest sister Caroline also decided to marry a cousin in 1838, Darwin not only was glad, but also gave his authoritative biological approval.:eek:
According to Erasmus Darwin, Charles' brother (his uncle and grandfather were also named Erasmus), there was a definite question of biological weakness within the Darwin family, epilepsy being reported among other maladies. Charles' answer to this was to improve the strain through inbreeding.!!!!:eek:
Mating among first cousins, as in Darwin's case, or his sister Caroline's case, results in the offspring having identical genes in a ratio of 1 to 7. Many of these genes are expected to be recessive mutants. Mating of uncle-niece, or nephew-aunt, raises this ratio to 1 to 3 (25%). Mating among siblings, almost the worst possible kind, raises this ratio 1 to 1 (50%).
Darwin correctly noted that inbreeding does tend to accentuate characteristics, and bring out new traits, latent in the mutant recessive genes.......but he didn't acept that such traits would be almost invariably deleterious.....due to the build up of deleterious mutations since the Fall:eek:
The 19th century also has another famous example of Evolutionist inbreeding in action.
He came from a small town on the Austrian border. The responsible party was Herr Heidler who, impregnated his servant girl, who also happened to be his niece or his first cousin once removed (depending on Herr Heidler's exact parentage-which is believed to be one of two brothers).
He proceeded to obtain a dispensation, to marry his niece / cousin. His local bishop refused to grant the dispensation....but this was over-turned by The Vatican.
From this union came a series of miscarriages, as well as two sons and one daughter. The eldest son's name was Adolf Heidler (Hitler)......and of course, Hitler himself became infatuated (and intimate) with his OWN niece......."like father like son" seems to summarise this particular Evolutionist's attitude to in-breeding:eek:Depeche_Mode wrote: »Thirdly, the idea that we were created 10,000 years ago can be pretty easily written off by the massive amounts of junk DNA and also the appendix that served some purpose hundreds of millions of years ago but is now defunct.
Firstly, any of the DNA sequences formerly relegated to the junk pile have begun to obtain new respect for their role in genome structure and function, gene regulation and rapid speciation.
Secondly, there are examples of what seem to be true junk DNAs, i.e. sequences that have lost their functions, either due to mutational inactivation that could have occurred post-Fall, or by God-ordained time limits set on their functions.
..and you can read all about it here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/junk_dna.asp
..and EVOLUTIONISTS are claiming that Human Evolution accellerated RAPIDLY over the past 10,000 years.......but what they are actually discovering is the expansion of the Human Population post-Babel!!!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/faster-than-speeding-bullet
A clue to the appendix’s function is its strategic position where the small bowel meets the colon. The colon is loaded with bacteria that are useful there, but which must be kept away from other areas. The appendix’s main role is in early childhood. The organ’s highly concentrated lymphoid follicles, which play an important role in the immune system, develop about two weeks after birth—at the same time that the colon begins to be colonized with the necessary bacteria.
.....and here is a surgeons view of the vital role which the appendix plays TODAY:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/appendix.asp0 -
-
ALL Creation Scientists are CONVENTIONAL scientists qualified from CONVENTIONAL universities.
Quite a generalization. And they are far from conventional!Many STILL sit on peer-review committees in these Universities.
A university 'peer-review committee'?? Eh, what? Do you know how the peer review system works or even what it is? It appears not. :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
Originally Posted by J C
......tace......cur????
Cur non respondére Scofflaw ad e epistulae meus???
Sed tantum dic verbo credo in Jesu Christe et servare tu. (Fac 16:31)
Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri. His qui credunt in Nomine ejus.
Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem coeli et terre, et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum. Iterum venturus est cum gloria cujus regni non erit finis. Et exspecto ressurrectionem mortuorum et vitam venturi saeculi.No fair! not all of us can read Spanish
It isn't Spanish......I am trying to communicate with Scofflaw........who seems to be very scared about the Georgia Guidestones......and I want to help him in his current predicament.
.......so pray for Scofflaw......and me!!!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
No fair! not all of us can read Spanish......tace......cur????
Cur non respondére Scofflaw ad e epistulae meus???
Sed tantum dic verbo credo in Jesu Christe et servare tu. (Fac 16:31)
Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri. His qui credunt in Nomine ejus.
Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem coeli et terre, et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum. Iterum venturus est cum gloria cujus regni non erit finis. Et exspecto ressurrectionem mortuorum et vitam venturi saeculi.
Or Church Latin.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Peer-reviewers still meet 'in committee' to review many scientific paper submission.......e-coms haven't taken over all peer review ......just yet!!!
You've just exposed your ignorance there, J C. Peer review of papers is never done in committees and never has been. Nor are these imaginary committees affiliated to a university - researchers are approached individually.
The only thing that even comes close to the situation you describe is the review of grant submissions - an issue entirely diistinct from paper submissions.
Perhaps creation science peer review is different. Certainly the emphasis is more on theological concerns than scientific merit. Maybe they meet in 'university peer-review committees' and drink tea while discussing the latest flaw in evolutionary theory?0 -
You've just exposed your ignorance there, J C. Peer review of papers is never done in committees and never has been. Nor are these imaginary committees affiliated to a university - researchers are approached individually.
The only thing that even comes close to the situation you describe is the review of grant submissions - an issue entirely diistinct from paper submissions.
Perhaps creation science peer review is different. Certainly the emphasis is more on theological concerns than scientific merit. Maybe they meet in 'university peer-review committees' and drink tea while discussing the latest flaw in evolutionary theory?
There is of course, individual peer review......but Academic Conference Programme Committees can also provide peer review for Academic Papers published as Proceedings from such Conferences. ......and indeed practically all 'routine' / 'ordinary' scientific research is published this way nowadays !!:D0 -
-
There is of course, individual peer review......but Academic Conference Programme Committees can also provide 'peer review' for Academic Papers published as Proceedings from such Conferences.
Eh, wrong again, I'm afraid. Ignoring the fact that you have moved the goalposts to conference proceedings only, the programme committees for conferences primary responsibilities are to invite speakers and arrange the logistics. Submissions to conferences still go through the normal peer review process (or are not subject to review at all, in some cases).
Care to keep digging this hole? Perhaps some more lies will help! 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement