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
1298299301303304822

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 142 ✭✭Hot Dog


    a few swift slashes of occams razor would see this matter closed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PDN wrote: »
    I mention that fish and aquatic mammals (gathered by varying means) could provide food sources for carnivores. A response immediately tries to poke fun at me as saying that one particular acquatic creature (fish) could be gathered by one particular carnivore (lion) by one particular method (swimming).

    I mention beached whales as one of a number of possible food sources for carnivores, but responses misrepresent me as saying that beached whales were the only food source for all carnivores.

    I mention carrion as one of a number of possible food sources for carnivores, but responses misrepresent me as saying that carrion was the only food source

    I mention rabbits as one fast breeding species that could provide a sustainable food source fairly quickly for some carnivores, but responses misrepresent me as saying that rabbits would be the sole food source for one particular carnivore (lions).

    This does not appear to be one person using language sloppily on one or two occasions. Instead it is a consistent pattern of misrepresentation that is indeed dishonest and makes any kind of debate meaningless.


    No, we only find ourselves back at square one if you are continuing the same pattern of falsely treating my reference to beached whales as an assertion that beached whales were the only possible food source.

    Other possible food sources could include carrion and also fresh aquatic food sources such as: fish, crustaceans, squid, octopi, snakes, frogs, dolphins, seals, turtles, manatees etc.

    ......your comments PDN, are indeed very insightful......and it looks like the Lions would have been spoiled for choice......with a 'dining menu' that would have exceeded the food variety found in most modern 'Cordon Bleu' Restaurants!!!!:D

    Anyway, we must have sympathy for the terrible position in which the Evolutionists find themselves......
    ...........for, when ALL of the evidence supports the Genesis account......and none of it supports Spontaneous Evolution........
    .......I suppose it is understandable that the Evolutionists start going around in circles and resorting to sloppy 'non-arguments'......in the hope of losing everyone in the 'fog of their exhausts'.........but PDN's razor-sharp intellect has caught them out!!!!!!:eek::D:)

    ........don't feel too bad about your weak arguments lads...........it's almost entirely due to the invalidity of Spontaneous Evolution!!!!!!:eek::D:)

    ......and here are some words of 'comfort' AGAIN for the Evolutionists on this thread.......... from a fellow Evolutionist and ACLU member Robert E. Smith who says:

    "For the past five years, I have closely followed creationist literature and have attended lectures and debates on related issues.... based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only a viable theory, but that it has achieved parity with (if not superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution.
    That this should now be the case is somewhat surprising, particularly in view of what most of us were taught in primary and secondary school.
    In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to debate the creationist professors. Too many of the evolutionists have been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory."

    "Origins and Civil Liberties," by Robert E. Smith as quoted in Creation Social Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 3 (Winter 1980): 23-24.

    .....equally the following quote could ALSO describe the 'state of play' on this thread:-
    "At this point the war centering around Darwinism and its control over the scientific discussion of origins is going well for the creationists, and evolution is being defeated in many battles."
    -Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 12.


    .....and this might be good advice for all of the Evolutionists on this thread as well:-
    "Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate."
    -Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13.

    Emphasis in all case mine!!!!:eek::):D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Hot Dog wrote: »
    a few swift slashes of occams razor would see this matter closed.

    ......in favour of Creationism.....

    ......BUT, I wonder, would the Evolutionists accept it????:confused::)


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    There will be an awful scramble for 10,000. How about this? Whichever side claims that flag decides the victory of this debate so we can all go home to our wives and children?

    .......I suppose if you cannot win the debate by using logic or citing evidence.......then the next best thing, for the Evolutionists, is to 'win' it by chancing upon the 10,000th Posting!!!!!!:eek::D:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 142 ✭✭Hot Dog


    J C wrote: »
    ......in favour of Creationism.....

    ......BUT, I wonder, would the Evolutionists accept it????:confused::)

    I wonder, i which way would th inclusion of an omnipotent creator be more elegant and more parsimonious? You still have not answered most of my questions, involving geological outcrops on our very doorstep. you should visit these places and trust the evidences of your own eyes. It might do you good.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭Eschatologist


    J C wrote: »
    .......I suppose if you cannot win the debate by using logic or citing evidence.......then the next best thing, for the Evolutionists, is to 'win' it by chancing upon the 10,000th Posting!!!!!!:eek::D:)

    Frankly, you seem a bit desperate to divert attention away from your own lack of evidence by declaring the matter essentially closed. I have yet to read any sound geological evidence from your posts or hear of your "intimate knowledge of the geology of Ireland" which 'backs' your claims.

    Faith without wisdom is foolishness.....:eek:


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Frankly, you seem a bit desperate to divert attention away from your own lack of evidence by declaring the matter essentially closed. I have yet to read any sound geological evidence from your posts or hear of your "intimate knowledge of the geology of Ireland" which 'backs' your claims.

    JC declared the matter closed, and himself as winner, at least 300 pages ago. Frankly I think he went in knowing he had already won*.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    *your mileage may vary


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Hot Dog wrote: »
    I wonder, i which way would th inclusion of an omnipotent creator be more elegant and more parsimonious? You still have not answered most of my questions, involving geological outcrops on our very doorstep. you should visit these places and trust the evidences of your own eyes. It might do you good.

    Tuché......:D:)

    ......the Heavens declare the glory of God.......and the 'rocky outcrops'........shout "Noah's Flood" !!!!:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    JC declared the matter closed, and himself as winner, at least 300 pages ago. Frankly I think he went in knowing he had already won*.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    *your mileage may vary

    ........you are correct, in some respects.........the Saved HAVE 'already won' salvation........and with the truth of God ........WHO can defeat us??????:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Faith without wisdom is foolishness.....:eek:

    ....it all depends on WHO you put your FAITH in.......and from WHERE you derive your WISDOM!!!!!:):D


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 142 ✭✭Hot Dog


    J C wrote: »
    Tuché......:D:)

    ......the Heavens declare the glory of God.......and the 'rocky outcrops'........shout "Noah's Flood" !!!!:D

    Explain how, using references from outcrops you have visited in this country.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Hot Dog wrote: »
    Explain how, using references from outcrops you have visited in this country.

    Again, using the broad brushstrokes of pseudo-science, we say "they look like sediments laid down under water, the Flood was water, they were laid down under the Flood - except for the ones associated with the tectonic events associated with the Flood".

    However, I'm sure JC will be able to provide a more comprehensive picture.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    2. minimum viable population.- I take it that is based on genetics. The biosphere at the Flood would have had far less genetic load than we have today, so the problem did not arise. Same applies, only more so, for the Edenic biosphere.

    what exactly does "less genetic load" mean and how does it reduce mvp to 2 ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 48 Killbot2000


    Genetic load is a number between 0 and 1 and it measures the extent to which the average individual in a population is inferior to the best possible kind of individual.

    http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Genetic_load.asp

    Some of the creationists argued that there was no genetic load because the animals were only recently created so the MVP could be small, since there would be no risks from inbreeding. Flawless argument.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭sdep


    Genetic load is a number between 0 and 1 and it measures the extent to which the average individual in a population is inferior to the best possible kind of individual.

    http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Genetic_load.asp

    Some of the creationists argued that there was no genetic load because the animals were only recently created so the MVP could be small, since there would be no risks from inbreeding. Flawless argument.

    Yes, and we see the claim here:
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Adam and Eve and all the rest of creation were created without flaw, physically or morally. No mutations in their genes, for example.

    Of course, it's hard to know what exactly is meant by a perfect gene, or one without mutations - mutations from what? Genes, as Creationists concede, are selected by their environment - both the rest of the genome, and the external world - so any standard of perfection necessarily changes with that environment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Again, using the broad brushstrokes of pseudo-science, we say "they look like sediments laid down under water, the Flood was water, they were laid down under the Flood - except for the ones associated with the tectonic events associated with the Flood".

    However, I'm sure JC will be able to provide a more comprehensive picture.


    .......you're doing pretty well yourself..........

    ......and even though you probably don't mean to do so.......you are illustrating the powerful explanation which Noah's Flood provides for many Geological Formations.....

    ......keep up the good work, Scofflaw!!!!!:eek::D


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    J C wrote: »
    .......you're doing pretty well yourself..........

    ......and even though you probably don't mean to do so.......you are illustrating the powerful explanation which Noah's Flood provides for many Geological Formations.....

    ......keep up the good work, Scofflaw!!!!!:eek::D

    Aye-up. Fish, barrel, double-barrel.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Aye-up. Fish, barrel, double-barrel.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    ......."double barrell"....eh......you must be really, really good!!!!!:D:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    MooseJam wrote: »
    what exactly does "less genetic load" mean and how does it reduce mvp to 2 ?
    Let me give my layman's exlanation:
    Adam & Eve had perfect genes - no mutations or defects, and a full compliment. From them a world of perfect humans could have arisen.

    however, when they sinned, their bodies as well as spirits fell from perfection, and moved toward death. Their bodies became subject to sickness, disease and death. Their genes to mutation.

    But they came from a perfect starting point, so the amount of mutation/defect was much less then than it is now, after several millenia of decline. Noah & family were not as free from genetic load as they, but a lot less than we are.

    So what is unlikey to succeed today in breeding was much more likely then.

    From them all the variations in skin colour, statue, etc. developed. The genetic information carried by Noah and family was wide enough for that, being closer to the perfect source than we are. Adaption has shut off a return to that capability for us - information lost has gone for good.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    sdep wrote: »
    Yes, and we see the claim here:



    Of course, it's hard to know what exactly is meant by a perfect gene, or one without mutations - mutations from what? Genes, as Creationists concede, are selected by their environment - both the rest of the genome, and the external world - so any standard of perfection necessarily changes with that environment.

    v = Wopt applied to Adam & Eve only. v has reduced with time, as a consequence of the Fall.

    Adam & Eve's genes were not created by, nor affected by, the enviroment - until the Fall. That's when their perfection ended.

    I would not use 'perfection' to describe anyone's genes since - no matter how relatively suitable to their enviroment. For example, black skin for a hot climate is great - but the possessor is still far away from Adam's original genetic state.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭sdep


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Let me give my layman's exlanation:
    Adam & Eve had perfect genes - no mutations or defects, and a full compliment.
    [...]
    From them all the variations in skin colour, statue, etc. developed. The genetic information carried by Noah and family was wide enough for that, being closer to the perfect source than we are. Adaption has shut off a return to that capability for us - information lost has gone for good.

    Does this mean that they each had two identical copies of every gene, or just two of exactly equal fitness? If the latter, then you at least have four alleles to start with, or three for X-chromosome genes. The multiple alleles would be mutations of each other - I gather that mutation in the sense used above refers specifically to deleterious mutations.

    Many human genes have more than four functional alleles, some vastly more so, so how has information been lost? Surely it's been gained.

    One system I find particularly interesting is the human MHC, a family of cell-surface receptors involved in the immune system. MHC receptors lock onto pieces of invading pathogens and present them to cells of the immune system, helping promote an immune response. Humans have a number of different MHC genes, and each has up to hundreds of widely divergent functional alleles.

    The really peculiar thing about the MHC is how ancient the alleles are. For any gene or (more generally) stretch of DNA you can work out the most recent common ancestor by seeing how all the variation present across the world population today can be collapsed back to its origins. Applying this approach to the human mitochondrial genome and the Y chromosome gives dates (fossil-calibrated) for so-called mitochondrial Eve (~150,000 years) and Y-chromosome Adam (~60-90,000 years). A section of the X-chromosome gave a most recent common ancestor of ~450,000 years. Dates, then, are generally fairly recent in evolutionary terms, and much more recent than the human-chimp lineage split.

    However, the MHC is remarkable. The most recent common ancestor is of the order of tens of millions of years, far older than the divergence of human, chimp, gorilla, orang etc lineages. The reason for this is that, for a given MHC gene, your DNA sequences could be closer to those in a gorilla than those in someone standing next to you at the bus stop. Why should this be? The most accepted theory is that having two distinct copies of an MHC gene helps you respond to more pathogenic diseases than if you had two identical copies, so diversity is selected and thus maintained over very long times.

    Is there a good Creationist explanation for this that goes against a common evolutionary history?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Annatar wrote: »
    Yeah, just imagine the amount of fodder to be stored on the Ark for herbivores alone, for the 40 days plus afterwards while the plant life recovered.

    Fresh water, for all the animals, while onboard and afterwards... till the rainwater built up sufficient supplies, and any contaminents are washed away

    The huge mountain of meat for carnivores, during the 40 days and the many many years afterwards, while the herbivore population increased to such a size where it could sustain carnivores. The pressure to supply meat would also increase as time went on as the carnivores multiplied as well.

    While the mountain of meat is huge... what size is the amount of salt required to preserve it all??
    Where to get the meat in the first place?
    What size is the Ark now?

    And how to get around the annoying bit about inbreeding in the animals... After what? 2 - 3 generations they would be sterile

    Planet wide flood nope, localised flood yeah. Especially if it was only Noah's farm animals he took onboard

    An article to help answer your questions:
    How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/595/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 142 ✭✭Hot Dog


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    v = Wopt applied to Adam & Eve only. v has reduced with time, as a consequence of the Fall.

    Adam & Eve's genes were not created by, nor affected by, the enviroment - until the Fall. That's when their perfection ended.

    I would not use 'perfection' to describe anyone's genes since - no matter how relatively suitable to their enviroment. For example, black skin for a hot climate is great - but the possessor is still far away from Adam's original genetic state.

    uh oh. steep learning curve ahead.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    sdep wrote: »
    Does this mean that they each had two identical copies of every gene, or just two of exactly equal fitness? If the latter, then you at least have four alleles to start with, or three for X-chromosome genes. The multiple alleles would be mutations of each other - I gather that mutation in the sense used above refers specifically to deleterious mutations.

    Many human genes have more than four functional alleles, some vastly more so, so how has information been lost? Surely it's been gained.

    One system I find particularly interesting is the human MHC, a family of cell-surface receptors involved in the immune system. MHC receptors lock onto pieces of invading pathogens and present them to cells of the immune system, helping promote an immune response. Humans have a number of different MHC genes, and each has up to hundreds of widely divergent functional alleles.

    The really peculiar thing about the MHC is how ancient the alleles are. For any gene or (more generally) stretch of DNA you can work out the most recent common ancestor by seeing how all the variation present across the world population today can be collapsed back to its origins. Applying this approach to the human mitochondrial genome and the Y chromosome gives dates (fossil-calibrated) for so-called mitochondrial Eve (~150,000 years) and Y-chromosome Adam (~60-90,000 years). A section of the X-chromosome gave a most recent common ancestor of ~450,000 years. Dates, then, are generally fairly recent in evolutionary terms, and much more recent than the human-chimp lineage split.

    However, the MHC is remarkable. The most recent common ancestor is of the order of tens of millions of years, far older than the divergence of human, chimp, gorilla, orang etc lineages. The reason for this is that, for a given MHC gene, your DNA sequences could be closer to those in a gorilla than those in someone standing next to you at the bus stop. Why should this be? The most accepted theory is that having two distinct copies of an MHC gene helps you respond to more pathogenic diseases than if you had two identical copies, so diversity is selected and thus maintained over very long times.

    Is there a good Creationist explanation for this that goes against a common evolutionary history?
    Beyond my competence, but here are a couple of sites that should provide answers:
    Does gene duplication provide the engine for evolution?, by Jerry Bergman, PhD.
    http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5477

    MHC search:
    http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/creationontheweb?q=mhc&hl=en&lr=


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'm afraid you'll have to read the thread, because that is certainly the claim that is being discussed here.

    However, the claim that "physical phenomena and observable scientific data are consistent with and even supportive of a literalist understanding of the Genesis account" is essentially the same claim.

    If one claims that the evidence supports the Genesis Flood, one is saying that the evidence is that of a mass of water covering the earth. That claim is entirely meaningless if the Flood can leave any evidence whatsoever, depending on God's will - because it becomes possible for the evidence to look like evidence of a picnic instead, or of a lightbulb, of for there to be no evidence whatsoever.

    One can either claim that divine intervention arranged things "just so", or one can claim that the events described in Genesis left the evidence one would expect.
    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    Not sure what you are thinking here, Scofflaw. :confused: No Creationist claims God manipulated the results of the Flood so that it wouldn't appear there was one!

    We claim the evidence is consistent with the Flood. You deny it is. The debate is over whether it does or not.

    So PDN is correct: we do not claim science can prove the Biblical account - only that it can show it is consistent with the evidence.

    As I recall, that is the same claim evolutionists make for their system.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Define reality in that context. You are making a very complex issue seem black and white.
    I'm using reality in the historic sense of the word, to mean the actual state of everything, as opposed to faulty concepts of it.

    To whatever extent a world-view diverges with reality, to that degree it is fractured. Some are much more so than others.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I'm using reality in the historic sense of the word, to mean the actual state of everything, as opposed to faulty concepts of it.

    Again, this is too black and white, and ironically, not in touch with reality at all. Looking at some of your comments in another thread, that is not surprising to me. Reality in a historic sense is about as subjective as you can get. As Napoleon said: 'History is merely a fiction agreed upon'.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    To whatever extent a world-view diverges with reality, to that degree it is fractured. Some are much more so than others.

    What utter nonsense, and only reinforces my belief that Christians are a pompous, bigoted group. I love the way you makes yourselves out to be loving and caring, yet when you scratch the surface, you find a horrible nastiness.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Not sure what you are thinking here, Scofflaw. :confused: No Creationist claims God manipulated the results of the Flood so that it wouldn't appear there was one!

    We claim the evidence is consistent with the Flood. You deny it is. The debate is over whether it does or not.

    So PDN is correct: we do not claim science can prove the Biblical account - only that it can show it is consistent with the evidence.

    As I recall, that is the same claim evolutionists make for their system.

    Yes - that's the point I'm making to PDN. That claim is only meaningful if we assume that God did not simply intervene to arrange things 'just so' - there have to be some rules, even if they involve different assumptions from those of the 'evolutionists'.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Again, this is too black and white, and ironically, not in touch with reality at all. Looking at some of your comments in another thread, that is not surprising to me. Reality in a historic sense is about as subjective as you can get. As Napoleon said: 'History is merely a fiction agreed upon'.



    What utter nonsense, and only reinforces my belief that Christians are a pompous, bigoted group. I love the way you makes yourselves out to be loving and caring, yet when you scratch the surface, you find a horrible nastiness.
    I'm sorry, I don't buy this all ideas are equally true. Creation as true as Evolution? Hindism as Christianity? Atheist as Theism?

    If that makes me horribly nasty, I prefer that to being unreal.

    History is indeed very subjective - one man's assessment of reality. But we were discussing the nature of reality, not history.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I'm sorry, I don't buy this all ideas are equally true. Creation as true as Evolution? Hindism as Christianity? Atheist as Theism?

    It is safe to say that all attempts at describing god are equally wrong. Otherwise there would be a convergence of ideas, as opposed to the divergence we see, even within sects. Atheism, on the other hand, is in unanimous agreement, because it follows logic and reason as opposed to wishful thinking. This is atheism's strength, imo.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    History is indeed very subjective - one man's assessment of reality. But we were discussing the nature of reality, not history.

    You were the one who used the word 'historic', perhaps you should look up its meaning. Besides, even reality is subjective, when you think about it. What is reality to a rabbit vs a human? Does reality only apply to living things? What is reality at a sub-atomic level? What is reality in a black hole?

    Things are far more complex than you and the desert nomads alluded to, my friend.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement