The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

I think JC has stopped taking his medication again ...

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.......so where have stone-works of an eqivalent scale and quality to the Great Pyramid of Egypt been RECENTLY carried out??

It could be done... but stone-works of an equivalent scale and quality to the great pyramids of Egypt aren't exactly a priority in a World facing imminent, catastrophic Rapture!!!! :pac:

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.......so where have stone-works of an eqivalent scale and quality to the Great Pyramid of Egypt been RECENTLY carried out???

Considering that by modern standards the construction of new pyramids in such a manner would be very wasteful your point (like most of what you say) is moot.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror:
I can measure the first three but not the fourth one. The intellect is, as I said, a combination of features found seperately in many other species. The combination makes us better by one specific measure alone.

.....you are correct that intellect is intangible.....and cannot be DIRECTLY measured........but it can certainly be indirectly measured and identified through its resultant actions.......everything from the Super-Computer to the Space Shuttle!!!!

Shockingly, you misunderstand. I wasn't talking about intellect. "The fourth one" refers to the fourth subject of your original message, the eternal soul. It is not measurable. We have any number of ways of measuring human intelligence directly. That it is a combination of features makes it no less measurable.

J C wrote: »

Interestingly, God has similarities to the intellect in that His presence cannot be directly sensed.......but the results of His actions can be clearly seen ......so that those who deny Him are without excuse!!!!:D

They have a perfect excuse. His actions are only discernible from natural processes if we make the assumption that Genesis is true. Since this is unverifiable, there is no basis in science for your grander assumptions.

J C wrote: »

.......so where have stone-works of an eqivalent scale and quality to the Great Pyramid of Egypt been RECENTLY carried out???

Why would they be when we have concrete and reinforced steel? You are just trying to deflect the conversation away from topics you can’t address, yet again.

J C wrote: »

..... where 100 tonne stone blocks were cut and placed upon one another with such precision that a sheet of paper wouldn't fit between them!!!!!

Try putting a piece of paper between two ill-fitting cinder blocks. Stop going off-topic.

Once again… still waiting for you to address my points from this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56108253&postcount=10914

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Once again… still waiting for you to address my points from this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56108253&postcount=10914

So not gonna happen.

marco_polo

Very interesting and relevant article about an experiment on ecoli bacteria that has been running since 1988 at Michigan State university. Some bacteria evolved to use citrate instead of glucose as the primary source of food.

Stephen J Gould once asked what would happen if the clock was turned back to the beginning of time would things turn out the same, in this case when they replayed the experiment again from a point just before the citrate eating bacteria appeared the results were very different indeed.

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

robindch

marco_polo wrote: »

Very interesting and relevant article about an experiment on ecoli bacteria that has been running since 1988 at Michigan State university. Some bacteria evolved to use citrate instead of glucose as the primary source of food.

Interesting indeed; a bit like the fruitfly experiments, but with more generations, and much more dramatic results. New "information" de novo, without intervention, no e-coli-deity spotted either.

I can't wait to see what the creationists will make of this particular nail in their coffin -- JC?

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

So not gonna happen.

Probably not, but neither are we ever likely to convince J C of the invalidity of creationism. Opening J C's eyes is not the point- he's demonstrated already that far from merely not understanding evolution, that he may actually lack the capacity to understand it. The argument itself, and underlining of arguments he's side-stepped, is the point. The undecided audience who drop in every now and again is the point.

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
1. The Church from its inception held to a Young Earth interpretation.
It also held that its interpretation was inerrant.
You've rejected the inerrancy, which means that you accept that the churches beliefs are entirely fallible.

The Church originally held inerrancy only for the Scriptures (the Old Testament books) and the teaching of the apostles. After the death of the apostles, inerrancy was only found in the now completed Scriptures, the Bible (the Old Testament books plus the New Testament books).

Only much latter did a claim arise to infallibility, and never in the true Church.

Quote:
It is the Christian view.

There is no shortage of Christian views that were held as definitive and inerrant, until such times as people decried as heretics showed them to be wrong.

Usually, alleged them to be wrong.

Thus, claiming that something has been historically "the" Christian view seems to be of little benefit. Indeed, given that the majority of Christians would seem to have abandoned it today would support the notion that the majority of Christians have accepted not only the possibility for errancy in this aspect of their historical beliefs, but have accepted that the evidence indicates it was, in fact, errant.

As I said, the claim to inerrant interpretation is not a Christian one. But a doctrine held by all the main claimants to the name of Christian, over the entire Church age, has much more weight than any adopted some 1900 years later. It need not be true, but the onus is one the 'new light' faction to say why and to justify their interpretation from Scripture. The Theistic Evolutionists have not done so.

Quote:
All other views have to set aside the historic understanding and explain why the Church was in ignorance about this 'truth' for so long.

Its quite simple.

Firstly, the church was in ignorance because everyone was in ignorance. You can't expect to know about something before it is discovered.

The Church was not in ignorance - it had the infallible, inerrant word of God telling it that the world and all in it were created some 6000 years ago. One can of course say the Bible was wrong, but then one can no longer claim to be a Christian. A Christian is one who believes the word of God.

Secondly, the church was in ignorance after the discovery because it holds even more strongly to long-held beliefs then you have accused science of doing.

Science is the interpretations of man, subject to error. The teaching of the Bible is the word of God, not subject to error. Were it a matter of obscurity, like some things in the bible, then we could say our interpretation was mistaken. But the creation account is unmistakeable.

Every admission of error is a thorn in the side of religion. As the evidence became more and more compelling, more and more people accepted that to hold to their previous beliefs was putting their fallible understanding of the message in the bible in the place of the inerrancy of the bible....which - as you yourself have effectively admitted - would be wrong.

Except that it is not a matter of interpretation - it is perfectly clear. Alternative interpretations have to set aside the obvious meaning. They have no defence for doing so, except that they believe science has contradicted the obvious meaning of the Genesis account and all the references to it by Christ and the apostles.

Quote:
2. Most Christians today are not Christian in the New Testament sense of the word.

Neither were most Christians in the past....but they're the church that you've just been using to defend your historical view.

The true Church always held to the Genesis account, but so did even the false churches. As with many great doctrines - the Deity of Christ for example. That's how comprehensively the doctrine of a recent creation was held.

wolfsbane

rockbeer wrote: »

Well of course it demonstrates basic capabilities which are transferable between media, such as imagination, facility with tools, architectural skills etc. I've no problem or argument with that.

But the technologies involved in static stone are vastly different from floating wood. It's like saying that building a stone pyramid would equip you to build a diesel engine.

I've seen first hand the kind of boats the Egyptian pyramid builders were constructing. They're mighty impressive creations, as you may already know... but light years away from your ark.

As I say, provide some evidence of relevant skills and projects and you might have something.

All the Ark was required to do was float. It did not need any system of propulsion, nor even a rudder. A rudderless barge. The skill would be in making it strong enough to support its own eight and that of its cargo.

A civilisation able to build the pyramids is likely to have enough skills to build such a vessel.

Some of many sites on the nature of the Ark:
http://www.worldwideflood.com/default.htm

http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/hull_form/prop_hull_form.htm

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3027

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a bit of a silly way of looking at.

You don't obey me but I certainly don't want to send you to a lake of fire for all eternity.

It is only God's flawed emotional needy state that makes him get so worked up over people disobeying him.

Try to imagine that God is qualitively different from you.

Try to imagine One who is infinitely holy, One to whom sin is utterly repugnant.

That might change your mind about what is the appropriate sanction on sin.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Some things are very plain in the Bible. While you are correct in saying that most Christians today do not interpret Genesis as meaning a young Earth, we need to understand that:
1. The Church from its inception held to a Young Earth interpretation. It is the Christian view. All other views have to set aside the historic understanding and explain why the Church was in ignorance about this 'truth' for so long.

2. Most Christians today are not Christian in the New Testament sense of the word.
Or to put it another way, you guys believe you can't be wrong.

We can't be wrong about the plain statements of the Bible. The Genesis account and the references to it by Christ and the apostles are such.

We can choose to ignore them; or reject them as wrong; or claim they cannot mean what they obviously say; or, as Christian creationists do, accept them as the word of God, infallible and inerrant.

wolfsbane

MooseJam wrote: »

well how about something a bit more reasonable, like 50 lashes instead of an eternity burning in hell, it's hardly a reasonable punishment for most sins

See my comments to Wickie. God sees it differently from sinful men like us.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Try to imagine One who is infinitely holy, One to whom sin is utterly repugnant.

Obviously he doesn't apply this reflection of sin on himself...

:rolleyes:

MooseJam

wolfsbane wrote: »

Try to imagine One who is infinitely holy

whats your definition of holy

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

I saw an astounding and beautiful programme on TV - a man and a bonobo having an intense, intelligent, even emotional conversation using a machine that had been designed to enable the bonobo to communicate. I was almost in tears.

......you really ARE an emotional kind of guy!!!:D

rockbeer wrote: »

The only substantial differences between us and certain other primates are our facility for spoken language and our thumbs.

....and if you believe THAT......you will believe ANYTHING!!!:):D

......for an objective scientific report on this 'monkey business' look here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0120apetalk.asp

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

It could be done... but stone-works of an equivalent scale and quality to the great pyramids of Egypt aren't exactly a priority in a World facing imminent, catastrophic Rapture!!!! :pac:

....the rapture will only be catastrophic for those left behind to face the physical judgements of God .......but you do have a good general point there!!!:)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Once again… still waiting for you to address my points from this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56108253&postcount=10914

......I saw no substantive points in that posting to which I needed to reply!!!!

......I don't have the time nor the inclination to engage in endless semantic word games with you guys.....
......I made my points .....and you made yours.....and the observer can make their minds up who is correct!!!!:D

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Very interesting and relevant article about an experiment on ecoli bacteria that has been running since 1988 at Michigan State university. Some bacteria evolved to use citrate instead of glucose as the primary source of food.

Stephen J Gould once asked what would happen if the clock was turned back to the beginning of time would things turn out the same, in this case when they replayed the experiment again from a point just before the citrate eating bacteria appeared the results were very different indeed.

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

.......I would like to study any paper produced.....my initial reaction is that it was contamination with other 'wild' non-plasmid E.Coli that are capable of citrate metabolism......could I point out that other citrate-digesting bacteria succeeded in contaminating some of the flasks during the experiment!!!
.....alternatively, the E.Coli may have 'switched on' innate dormant citrate metabolism abilities!!!

J C

MooseJam wrote: »

whats your definition of holy

Jesus Christ.

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

......for an objective scientific report on this monkey business look here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0120apetalk.asp

Perhaps you would be good enough to do two things for me J C:

1. Point out where in my post I said the bonobo had vocalized. In fact it used a machine which used a system of visual symbols and keys that it pressed to communicate. Also please let me remind you that I pointed out exactly what your article does, namely that our facility for spoken language is one of the things that separates us from other species - although even regarding this, there is evidence that dolphins have both dialects and individual names.

2. Point out where in the article you refer to I can find the science. I just see lots of unsubstantiated statements. Do you automatically believe everything they publish on answersingenesis, regardless of whether any evidence is presented?

For a detailed and scientific assessment of kanzi, have a look at
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/2149

And if you can't be bothered to read the whole thing:

Kanzi was the first recorded non-human to show early, spontaneous symbolic representation. The precocious bonobo also appears to be able to comprehend simple spoken English. When tested with syntactically correct but bizarre and novel requests, Kanzi performed at a level comparable to that of a two-year old. He produced and follows two simple rules of syntax to impart additional meaning by word order. Kanzi’s sentences are often short, but unlike other simian communications, his requests often concern two other humans, not himself.

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

Perhaps you would be good enough to do two things for me J C:

1. Point out where in my post I said the bonobo had vocalized. In fact it used a machine which used a system of visual symbols and keys that it pressed to communicate. Also please let me remind you that I pointed out exactly what your article does, namely that our facility for spoken language is one of the things that separates us from other species - although even regarding this, there is evidence that dolphins have both dialects and individual names.

2. Point out where in the article you refer to I can find the science. I just see lots of unsubstantiated statements. Do you automatically believe everything they publish on answersingenesis, regardless of whether any evidence is presented?

1. I never said that the bonobo vocalised......I was more concerned with your emotionally-charged reaction to a 'tricky monkey'!!!!!:):D

2. The assertions in the AIG article was based on repeatably observable i.e. scientifically valid evidence !!!!!:D

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

1. I never said that the bonobo vocalised......I was more concerned with your highly emotional reaction to a 'tricky monkey'

Why concerned? I'd be concerned if it didn't make you feel emotional to suddenly understand in a very real sense just how closely related we are to these amazing animals. Especially as we're on the point of driving them to extinction, thanks in no small part to christianity with its doctrine of dominion.

J C wrote: »

2. The assertions in the AIG article was based on repeatably observable i.e. scientifically valid evidence !!!!!:D

So you assert, but nowhere in the article do they quote the research that backs up their claims. So how do you know?

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

Why concerned? I'd be concerned if it didn't make you feel emotional to suddenly understand in a very real sense just how closely related we are to these amazing animals. Especially as we're on the point of driving them to extinction, thanks in no small part to christianity with its doctrine of dominion.

......we DO have dominion.......but this demands responsible stewardship over God's Creation.
So we shouldn't hunt a particular species to extinction......equally we shouldn't go 'over the top' by giving the same (or in some cases greater) ethical status to animals than Humans!!!!!
.....that would be adoring the creature.....rather than the Creator!!!:D

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

......we DO have dominion.......but this demands responsible stewardship over God's Creation.

Unfortunately the bible doesn't seem to make that clear. It just tells us we have dominion. I looked that up in my dictionary and it translates as 'supreme authority'. No mention there of responsible stewardship, just domination.

You are of course right about all the things we shouldn't do, but sadly the bible and christianity offer us no guidance on such matters, being totally preoccupied with how much more important we are than everything else in the overall scheme of things.

I notice you decline to answer my other question. Care to elaborate on why?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Try to imagine that God is qualitively different from you.

Try to imagine One who is infinitely holy, One to whom sin is utterly repugnant.

That might change your mind about what is the appropriate sanction on sin.

See that is the problem you run into.

Firstly "infinitely holy" is a meaningless statement. Holy means divine, and you can't really have something that is only a bit divine. infinitely holy simply means holy.

Secondly the idea that an infinitely good being would find sin utterly repugnant is ridiculous

Sin is simply the act of disobeying. The idea that a perfect being would find the idea of a less being disobeying him repugent is as nonsensical as a human getting repulsed at a dog for not sitting when told.

God could certain be concerned that we disobey him as it obviously thinks that his way is the right way (and you guys believe he is always right), so he would be concerned about people not doing what they are told

But the idea that this would be repugent to him or that it would rise him to anger or wrath. Ridiculous. A perfect being being raised to anger because we dont do what he says. Nonsense

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

.......I would like to study any paper produced.....my initial reaction is that it was contamination with other 'wild' non-plasmid E.Coli that are capable of citrate metabolism......could I point out that other citrate-digesting bacteria succeeded in contaminating some of the flasks during the experiment!!!
.....alternatively, the E.Coli may have 'switched on' innate dormant citrate metabolism abilities!!!

Well one of the defining features non-plasmid E.Coli is that they cannot eat citrate. Are you seriously suggesting that a type of ecoli that has never been observed anywhere in nature before, just conviniently happened to wander into the lab to contaminate the experiment. :rolleyes:

The problem with your theory is that DNA analysis of the citrate eaters would quickly show if they came from outside contamination or not, as they would be very different in genetic makup to the existing population if this was the case.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

I can't wait to see what the creationists will make of this particular nail in their coffin

Allow me.....


.....


..............:pac::pac::pac:

...But the e-coli didn't spontaneously turn into... A LION!!! :eek::cool::D:D:cool::pac:


Being a creationist would be so easy.

iUseVi

Galvasean wrote: »

Allow me.....


.....


..............:pac::pac::pac:

...But the e-coli didn't spontaneously turn into... A LION!!! :eek::cool::D:D:cool::pac:


Being a creationist would be so easy.

HA HA....................... I might.....................:):)try it for ...............................a day.....................OR TWO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......................:pac:

Ha, I tried to submit a message and boards said I had too many smilies. I wonder if J C ever has that problem.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

...But the e-coli didn't spontaneously turn into... A LION!!! :eek::cool::D:D:cool::pac:

Ach, I wanted to say thanks JC-style too, but the backend produce a line I've not seen before:

boards.ie wrote:

You have included 25 images in your message. You are limited to using 15 images so please go back and correct the problem and then continue again.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: