The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

......so the Theory of Evolution predicts NOTHING in regard to the so-called 'inheritance of change'!!

It predicts that there will be one, and certain properties of it, but otherwise, that's correct. |It does not specifically predict DNA, for example - but DNA fulfills all the predicted criteria.

J C wrote: »

However, the Theory of Evolution maintains, for example, that complex highly functional organs, like the eye, have been 'perfected' (over millions of years) by Natural Selection getting rid of all of the 'junk' or non-functional attempts at 'improving' the supposed pre-cursors of 'modern' eyes by selection pressure......and retaining the 'improvements'!!!

Hmm. Not "perfected" - after all the human eye is far from perfect. Nor is there necessarily any pressure to get rid of "junk" - useless appendages etc, vestigial organs and limbs.

J C wrote: »

......so similar selection pressure (over millions of years) SHOULD have gotten rid of practically all non-functional, uselesss 'junk' DNA.....and we therefore should have little or no 'junk' DNA ......IF Evolution occurred .......

......the fact that we have large amounts of 'junk' DNA without any current function......supports the theory that this currently useless DNA played an important role in the earlier speciation of Created Kinds (a few thousand years ago).......and it now remains like discarded packaging ......as a reminder of Special Creation and Speciation!!!

You may want to read the article wolfsbane was pointing to before nailing your colours too firmly to the mast.

J C wrote: »

Why are Skeptics NOT actually Skeptical?

I came across an interesting explanation for why the self-styled Skeptics on this thread refuse to discuss the 'Guidestones' while 'wetting themselves' in their enthusiasm to criticise Creationism and the Word of God......

.....apparently this phenomenon is called "slides"......Most people react in a pre-programmed way towards a topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react in this way by institutional and media influences.

According to a leading programmer/de-programmer, most people have built-in "slides" that short circuit the mind's critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics.
"Slides", apparently is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead ends a person's thinking and terminates debate or examination of the topic at hand.
For example, the mention of the word "Guidestones" clearly elicits a "slides" 'termination response' from ALL of the Skeptics on this thread.

A conditioned response can equally manifest itself in emotional outbursts of indignation on various issues.
Mentioning the words "Creation Science" and/or any criticism of Evolution ilicits a typical conditioned 'outburst response' from the Skeptics on this thread!!!

......isn't it ironic that the Skeptics are the ones who are brainwashed.....and trying to suppress Creation Science.......so that they can promote their unfounded FAITH in Evolution !!!:D

Fnord.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

I have scanned some of them before.....and I looked at the first five minutes of one of them......and it is the usual stuff about "freedom of religion meaning freedom from religion".......which is an oxymoron......

Yes, perhaps you should look up what "oxymoron" means :rolleyes:

Oh yes, and as daithifleming says, stop bearing false witness. It is (supposed to be) against your religion

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Sigh. Junk DNA was not, and is not, part of "evolutionary theory". Junk DNA is explained in evolutionary terms, but does not form any part of the Theory of Evolution.

It will have been taught in biology classes at the same time as evolution, because the field of genetics is also a prediction of the Theory of Evolution, so it has a nice 'flow' in teaching terms.

So the idea of junk DNA was accepted and taught at the same time as all the evolutionary ideas about DNA, but it was not part of them? OK, if you say so.

"Admitted"? Insisted, in the teeth of repeated claims that from the Creationist side that you can't.

As to a theory that begins with the biosphere "complete, mature and fully functioning", the problem is that it does not explain the available evidence. It requires us to discard everything that is known about stratigraphic relations, without even considering dating. It is clear that the biosphere has changed through time.

Without going in to the disputed assertions about the geologic record, my point was the evolutionist refusal to admit to scientific discussion the mature biosphere theory. They refuse it as 'religious', because they know it can offer support to the Biblical account of origins. Yet evolution can be accepted, even though it can support an atheistic account of origins.

If they admited it as scientifc theory and attacked it with all their might, fine: that's what scientific theories are there for. But they censor it. Should make you ask ,Why?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

The problem (STILL) is that you clearly (STILL) don't understand what a scientific theory actually is.

It is not the collective opinion of scientists, it is an actual thing totally independent of the scientists who came up with it or who use it. Do you understand that yet?

Always have. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is totally independent from him. It stands or falls as a theory, not on its authorship. So why is the mature biosphere theory rejected on the basis of the beliefs of its authors?

"Materialist dogma"??

And what pray tell is "materialist dogma"

I used it to describe the idea that the biosphere must have naturally arisen from non-life.

You betray your own bias and ignorance Wolfsbane when you come out with stuff like this. Because science doesn't say what you want it to say you assume there must be an agenda in scientific community. When in fact the agenda lies completely with you. You require science to confirm your personal religious beliefs.

No, just not to insist any mechanisms of origins must be material. That is a religious belief, one competing with mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But will evolutionists admit to scientific discussion of a theory that begins with the biosphere complete, mature and fully functioning? Why not?

You ignore the fact that they did actually discuss this theory. They accept it at first, then discussed it for hundreds of years and eventually found that it simply does not match ANY of the evidence. So they abandoned it, as all good scientists do. A disproved theory is useless and has no value in science

It appears not to be settled, as many scientists then, now, and in between have disputed it. But you want to censor them now, and have the power to do so.

You seem to think that they should start re-discussing it now, despite it being disproved nearly 200 years ago.

It was rejected by most, but not by all. Not quite the same as disproved.

Again you betray your own bias and ignorance. You want it discussed so you can pretend to yourself that it hasn't been disproven, that if science is discussing it that must mean it is still up for debate. You and other Creationists want it to be rediscussed again and again ad nauseum simply because science isn't confirming for you your own person religious beliefs.

If it is so easily disproved, why not bring it on to the scientific arenas and do it? Because it is far from one-sided, as is shown when any evolutionist is courageous enough to debate creation scientists in the public arena. That's why they don't want creation scientists to have a hearing on the scientific arenas.

That is because your own person religious beliefs are wrong

You really need to get over it.

That's just what I was thinking about you! Your science would greatly improve if you took off your ideological specs.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

So to summarize:

• Jakkass posts about the meaning of "adultery".
• I point it a simple logical error in Jakkass' post.
• You agree with me and start a thread polling for opinions about what "adultery" actually means.
• I point out that all of this suggests that the confusion that I was talking about is real.
• You say that it's me that's confused.

Do you see why people might think your position is not consistent?

Hmm. Jakkass was suggesting marriage as a way to avoid adultery - a way to cope with sexual pressure without sleeping without the danger of bedding someone else's spouse. Very reasonable.

Your logically pointed out that without marriage there would be no adultery. True. But as any sex outside marriage is immoral, and your solution would not remove the pressure, we are back with marriage as the moral solution to adultery.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

as daithifleming says, stop bearing false witness. It is (supposed to be) against your religion

Wicknight, Wicknight, Wicknight. If you interpret the text correctly, you'll find it's not false witness at all. God is Truth and all that supports Him is axiomatically True.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your logically pointed out that without marriage there would be no adultery. True.

Thank you.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But as any sex outside marriage is immoral

Er, the sixth (seventh if you're a catholic/Lutheran) commandment is quite silent about sex outside marriage.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Part 1 of 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

2 of 6 (This is a good one)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA

3 of 6 (It gets better and better! I implore you to watch this video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnj7PlqmJ5o&feature=related

4 of 6 (Wolfsbane should watch this)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8

5 of 6 (JC, this is for you)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzmbnxtnMB4&feature=related

6 of 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM&feature=related




Just finished watching them all, brilliant stuff altogether. Pretty much wipes out the creationist argument in one sitting.

I watched #4. A brilliant piece of atheist dogma. Classic presentation of 'all religions differ, so none can be right'.

Mistaken in thinking spiritual things can only be known if verified by others. Many things even in material affairs can be known though only witnessed by an individual.

But it was dishonest as well as mistaken. Dishonest, in that it slipped from the non-verifiable spiritual claims of Creationists to their scientifically verifiable arguments, suggesting we had the same evidence for both.

Glad to see we still cause the wicked to react:
Acts 7:54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Always have. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is totally independent from him. It stands or falls as a theory, not on its authorship. So why is the mature biosphere theory rejected on the basis of the beliefs of its authors?

Its not, its rejected because it is a terrible theory. Newton believed in a mature biosphere, and he was brillant. But as you say the theory stands and falls on it's own merits.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I used it to describe the idea that the biosphere must have naturally arisen from non-life.

I don't think anyone has ever said it "must" have, in fact when scientists started looking at this no one thought it did. They now do because they have figured out that it actually did.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, just not to insist any mechanisms of origins must be material. That is a religious belief, one competing with mine.

No one insisted that they must be, they simply state that they are. In fact as I said originally no one believed that the origins were material, because no one could figure out how that would work and they were all religious anyway. The evidence pointed in that direction.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It appears not to be settled, as many scientists then, now, and in between have disputed it.

Well your definition of "many" scientists might be slightly different to mine :rolleyes:

With any scientific theory, from evolution to relativity to even gravity or the roundness of the Earth, you will always get some scientists who, for what ever reason (Young Earth Creation scientists cite personal religious belief) don't accept the theory as being accurate.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But you want to censor them now, and have the power to do so.

I have the power to censor people. Wow, I must tell my mum, she would be so proud.

There isn't a single Creationist who has ever been censored. Plenty have been ignored, but as I think we both agree, that is not the same thing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It was rejected by most, but not by all. Not quite the same as disproved.

If to disprove a theory requires that every single scientist on Earth agrees that it is disproved then the theory that the Earth is flat is still not disproved.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If it is so easily disproved, why not bring it on to the scientific arenas and do it? Because it is far from one-sided, as is shown when any evolutionist is courageous enough to debate creation scientists in the public arena. That's why they don't want creation scientists to have a hearing on the scientific arenas.

It was in the scientific arena, it was in the arena for decades. And it was disproved.

If you actually look at what has happened now you will find Creationists are refusing to go through the normal scientific channels (because they can't support their own theories) and are instead going through the courts and the school boards and the interweb.

And still scientists are more than happy to go and debate these topics there. If the scientists are afraid to debate these topics why then do they follow the Creationists to these ad hoc public forums to debate a theory they seemingly can't support and are afraid to debate?

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's just what I was thinking about you! Your science would greatly improve if you took off your ideological specs.

Quite :rolleyes:

Your science would greatly improve if you were prepared to accept truths that you don't find comforting and which don't provide easy answers, because unfortunately the universe isn't like that.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

I watched #4. A brilliant piece of atheist dogma. Classic presentation of 'all religions differ, so none can be right'.

Mistaken in thinking spiritual things can only be known if verified by others. Many things even in material affairs can be known though only witnessed by an individual.

But it was dishonest as well as mistaken. Dishonest, in that it slipped from the non-verifiable spiritual claims of Creationists to their scientifically verifiable arguments, suggesting we had the same evidence for both.

Glad to see we still cause the wicked to react:
Acts 7:54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.

So which is it? The god with an elephants head? Thor? Buddha? The Christian God? Im confused. Everyone seems to have a different god that cant wrong. They are all right? So there are many gods? I thought there was just one? What about Zeus? I really liked that guy... Maybe i will go with him, or maybe i will go with Ra, or Horus. Wow, there are just so many gods who are perfect and cant be wrong, i just cant choose! Im spoiled for choice!

It is a shame that there isn't another way of understanding the universe that is based on evidence and not blind faith...

Actually im in the market for a god and i got a list, will you help me go through it and pick one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZVRpqm0Cl0

So many gods, so little time. Its so hard to choose because ALL of them claim to be the true god. ALL of them claim to have appeared and have a magic book. ALL of them have a magic world for me to go to when i die. Its so hard!

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

So the idea of junk DNA was accepted and taught at the same time as all the evolutionary ideas about DNA, but it was not part of them? OK, if you say so.

Hmm. Not quite what I said. The theory of "junk DNA" would be taught as part of genetics, which in turn would be taught as part of evolutionary biology - but yes, the existence or non-existence of junk DNA is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Without going in to the disputed assertions about the geologic record, my point was the evolutionist refusal to admit to scientific discussion the mature biosphere theory. They refuse it as 'religious', because they know it can offer support to the Biblical account of origins. Yet evolution can be accepted, even though it can support an atheistic account of origins.

If they admited it as scientifc theory and attacked it with all their might, fine: that's what scientific theories are there for. But they censor it. Should make you ask ,Why?

It would make me ask "why?" if it weren't for the fact that it's dismissed because it has been investigated - indeed, was the first geological paradigm. It is discredited, not suppressed - out of date and discarded as untrue. No new evidence has come to light to require a reopening of the case - its "reopening" by the Creationist movement is a political move, not a scientific one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But as any sex outside marriage is immoral

Er, the sixth (seventh if you're a catholic/Lutheran) commandment is quite silent about sex outside marriage.

Yes, the Old Covenant commandment deals with the more serious form of sexual wickedness, that which violates a marriage covenant. But the prohibition on sex outside marriage is revealed subsequently, where it is a capital offence:
Deuteronomy 22:20 “But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.

The New Covenant commandments deal explicitly with sex outside marriage, e.g:
Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,

Fuller list: Fornication http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=fornication&version1=50&searchtype=all&wholewordsonly=yes&bookset=2

Sexual immorality http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=sexual+immorality&searchtype=all&wholewordsonly=yes&version1=50&bookset=2

Sexual immorality can cover adultery too, but usually a distinction is made.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

the prohibition on sex outside marriage is revealed subsequently, where it is a capital offence

So, where a woman is shown to have had sex prior to marriage, are you in favor of throwing stones at her until she falls down dead?

Ekancone

robindch wrote: »

So, where a woman is shown to have had sex prior to marriage, are you in favor of throwing stones at her until she falls down dead?

Of course, it is gods will.

HammerHeadGym

Hi all, a quick question for the creationists;

When Noah was redistributing all the animals, including the billion or so species of insect, what made him decide to loacte every single species of marsupial to Austrailia, and more importantly, why did he not mention it's existence to anyone, or America for that matter? was he just a secretive sort of guy or would a description of two enormous land masses have taken up too much room?

2Scoops

HammerHeadGym wrote: »

Hi all, a quick question for the creationists;

When Noah was redistributing all the animals, including the billion or so species of insect, what made him decide to loacte every single species of marsupial to Austrailia, and more importantly, why did he not mention it's existence to anyone, or America for that matter? was he just a secretive sort of guy or would a description of two enormous land masses have taken up too much room?

The insects mostly survived on flotsam, not the arc itself.

Marsupials went everywhere but only survived in Australia because it is their ideal climate.

Neither Noah nor God ever disputed the existence of Australia or the Americas.

All untrue, I'm just saving the creationists the effort of copy & pasting from previous posts. Hammerhead, you're about 8000 posts behind the rest of us.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

So, where a woman is shown to have had sex prior to marriage, are you in favor of throwing stones at her until she falls down dead?

Er, No, for we are not under the Law of Moses nor in the nation of Israel under that law.

The Old Covenant has given way to the New, and the physical nation-state of Israel to the spiritual kingdom of Israel.

The Church is not called to punish the wicked. We expel the immoral brother/sister, if they refuse to repent.

Punishment is a matter for the State:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013:1-7;&version=50;

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Punishment is a matter for the State:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013:1-7;&version=50;

Ahem.

http://www.armyofgod.com/Paulhillindex.html

Genesis 9:6

Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed:
for in the image of God made he man.

Numbers 35:33

So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are:
for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the
blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

The insects mostly survived on flotsam, not the arc itself.

Marsupials went everywhere but only survived in Australia because it is their ideal climate.

Neither Noah nor God ever disputed the existence of Australia or the Americas.

2 Scoops...you are becoming quite an accomplished Creationist!!!:eek::D

.....and BTW marsupials spread out to ALL continents after the Flood.....and marsupials survive today (as Opossums) throughout the AMERICAS as well as in Australia!!!!:D

Scofflaw wrote: »

Fnord

The Holy Spirit is telling me that you believe in a Supreme Being, Scofflaw!!!

......and speaking of believers, I have learned that His Most Eminent Highness Fra Andrew Willoughby Ninian Bertie died last week, on 07/02/08 aged 78 years.

Fra Andrew Bertie was one of the most powerful men in the World and a fourth cousin of Queen Elizabeth II......yet his passing went practically unremarked by the media!!!!!

......indeed, come to think of it .....his existence.....before he died ALSO went practically unreported by the media!!!!!


.......anyway, Scofflaw ......what is your opinion on the 'Guidestones'????

.......or indeed on Fra Andrew Bertie?????

Fnord!!!

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Punishment is a matter for the State:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013:1-7;&version=50;

Er, you might want to read those passages again

"For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God....For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. "

Bertie is God's minister?

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Er, No, for we are not under the Law of Moses nor in the nation of Israel under that law.

Does that mean that you believe that all the rules and definitions in the OT have been entirely replaced, or just some of them?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Punishment is a matter for the State

If a state law said to stone women who are found to have had sex with a man to whom they are not married, would you support and/or carry out this law?

robindch

daithifleming wrote: »

http://www.armyofgod.com/Paulhillindex.html

That is one sick webpage.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

(Fra Andrew) Bertie is God's minister?

.....ask Scofflaw!!!!:D;)

J C

robindch wrote: »

If a state law said to stone women who are found to have had sex with a man to whom they are not married, would you support and/or carry out this law?

Jn 8:1-11 ¶ Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

We should love the sinner and hate the sin.......

......but ironically, it is often the (secret) sinner ......who is loudest in their condemnation of another sinner whose sin has been (publicly) exposed!!!!:D

.......and the (unrepentant) hypocrite is usually the least merciful towards a (repentant) sinner!!!:D

philologos

robindch wrote: »

He says that marriage protects against adultery, without realizing that the definition of adultery requires the participation of a married woman. Without marriage, there'd be no married women and hence, no adultery.

Firstly to clear this up.

I understand adultery perfectly well. However contextualisation leads me to think that in our modern day scenario of courtship it should apply to all those who are in a relationship with eachother also. Bear in mind in Jewish society around Jesus' time, people got married earlier, and it was unheard of to be in a boyfriend - girlfriend situation. I think cheating on your girlfriend / boyfriend, is just as bad as committing adultery.

However I do understand that traditionally it applied to relations outside of marriage, (Edit: when one is married).

I didn't think I'd get so much discussion here really.

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't think I'd get so much discussion here really.

...........had you asked about the 'Guidestones'......you certainly wouldn't have got as much discussion!!!!:D

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote: »

Firstly to clear this up.

I understand adultery perfectly well. However contextualisation leads me to think that in our modern day scenario of courtship it should apply to all those who are in a relationship with eachother also. Bear in mind in Jewish society around Jesus' time, people got married earlier, and it was unheard of to be in a boyfriend - girlfriend situation. I think cheating on your girlfriend / boyfriend, is just as bad as committing adultery.

However I do understand that traditionally it applied to relations outside of marriage.

I didn't think I'd get so much discussion here really.

Oh, we'll discuss anything here. Well, except things we won't, obviously.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Bertie is God's minister?

Yes. Just as Augustus Caesar was when Paul wrote Romans 13. Doesn't mean they are good, bad or ugly - just that while they are the authorities, they are to be obeyed in all things lawful.

Ekancone

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

Punishment is a matter for the State:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013:1-7;&version=50;

*COUGH*

http://www.armyofgod.com/Paulhillindex.html

Genesis 9:6

Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed:
for in the image of God made he man.

Numbers 35:33

So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are:
for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the
blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
Last edited by daithifleming : Yesterday at 20:21.

*COUGH*

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Yes. Just as Augustus Caesar was when Paul wrote Romans 13. Doesn't mean they are good, bad or ugly - just that while they are the authorities, they are to be obeyed in all things lawful.

What? How do you define "things lawful"?

Was Hitler God's minister?