The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwywMP4Sxgo

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....a 'living dinosaur'.....eh......
....I wonder, does this ALSO make it a 'living fossil'????:D

Anyway, this proves that Evolutionists are eternal optimists........with ENORMOUS faith!!!!!

.....anybody who can believe that a SMALL lizard that has been around for less than 10,000 years .........is a hundred million year old DINOSAUR will believe ANYTHING!!!!

.......could I gently remind you that the word DINOSAUR means TERRIBLE LIZARD......and while the Tuatara is a LIZARD.....it most definitely isn't TERRIBLE.......unless. perhaps, to a frog or a mouse!!!!!:D

Ever heard of a term of phrase? How about looking before you leap? How about common sense? No wonder so many have you on ignore.

If you want me to go in detail about dinosaurs and lizards please ask.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Perfection can be subjective; or it can be an agreed standard by many people.
Um, that's still sujective.

Correct. That's why I specified the meaning: In this context - the Christianity forum - perfection is what God defines it as. Absence of sin is spiritual perfection - a spirit morally pure. That is His definition, not dependent on one or many for support.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....a 'living dinosaur'.....eh......
....I wonder, does this ALSO make it a 'living fossil'????:D

Anyway, this proves that Evolutionists are eternal optimists........with ENORMOUS faith!!!!!

Amazing that you will take a single piece of deliberate hyperbole as "proof" but dismiss 150 years of solid data as speculation... Some scientist.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Amazing that you will take a single piece of deliberate hyperbole as "proof" but dismiss 150 years of solid data as speculation... Some scientist.

......Spontaneous 'goo to you via the zoo' Evolution is totally hyperbolic!!!!:pac::):D

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwywMP4Sxgo

......ah yes the 'Nebraska Man'......that turned out to be a pigs tooth.......

.....I suppose if you can't quite bring yourself to believe that pigs WILL fly.......the next best thing is to believe that pigs once WERE Men.......or was it the other way around!!!!!:D

...and you can read all about it here:-
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_16.html

Interesting that within the first minute, the 'Creationist Junk' video visually focuses on the Ten Commandments of God!!!!!!!

........and then we are expected to believe that Atheists don't have a Spiritual Agenda............
.......and their science is as 'pure' as the driven snow........and as unblemished as a virgin in a chastity belt with a penis guillotine!!!!!:D

The reality is that Atheists use a self serving definition of Science (to exclude the observable results of the action of God)......in order to bolster their religious faith-based position that there is no God.

While such a position is to be expected from Atheists.......the fact that many Theists ALSO accept this approach is quite amazing!!!:D

robindch

J C wrote: »

......ah yes the 'Nebraska Man'......that turned out to be a pigs tooth.......

JC -- I dare you -- watch that video and learn something! :):):):)

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

JC -- I dare you -- watch all of that video and learn something! :):):):)

Corrected (because I think J C already "watched" the video but stopped at exactly 4 mins in)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......Spontaneous 'goo to you via the zoo' Evolution is totally hyperbolic!!!!:pac::):D

Hyperbole is exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis. It has a very different intent to your colourful use of language and intent is how the term hyperbole is defined. We've already established that your "goo to man" metaphor is vaguely accurate, once you clarify it fully, but I would question whether your phrasing has the intention of emphasis. Certainly your much favoured "muck to man" is not hyperbole at all but outright misleading.

At any rate, the use of hyperbole by some science journalist in an article somewhere does not give you carte blanche to use misleading language in the course of a scientific debate. There are established and well-understood terms and phrases for discussing evolutionary theory and abiogenesis, so there's no need for unfamiliar or made-up terms. I will continue to ask you for clarification at any and all times that you use such tactics.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

Interesting that within the first minute, the 'Creationist Junk' video visually focuses on the Ten Commandments of God!!!!!!!

Funny that. The voice-over mentions fundamentalist Christianity and the video displays their core tenets... I suppose they could have shown a picture of a person wearing a Jesus t-shirt but that might have seemed cheap.

J C wrote: »

........and then we are expected to believe that Atheists don't have a Spiritual Agenda............

Do you proof read you posts? Ever?

J C wrote: »

.......and their science is as 'pure' as the driven snow........and as unblemished as a virgin in a chastity belt with a penis guillotine!!!!!:D

What a wonderful image. You sound like you're on crack. Science is, of course, open to the influence of human imperfection. It's a lot less vulnerable than faith-based systems though.

Galvasean

Does he have an 'off' button?

I mean seriously, someone posted a video showing how scientists do not accept that the pig's tooth belonged to a cave man, then J C leaps out 'debunking' something the very same scientists never actually said. If that isn't bearing false witness I'm not quite sure what is.

MrPudding

Has anybody actually considered that rather than being misguided or intentionally lying, that JC might actually be quite seriously retarded?

MrP

MooseJam

I shouldn't laugh but

Galvasean

MrPudding wrote: »

Has anybody actually considered that rather than being misguided or intentionally lying, that JC might actually be quite seriously retarded?

MrP

No, because then I would have to have pity for him.

J C

Did you know that some Evolutionists call EACH OTHER 'Creeps' and 'Jerks'??:)
...and these are NOT words of derision......they are apparently terms of endearment amongst Evolutionists....and good 'wholesome Evolutionist fun'......as this article from The Economist indicates:-
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10601444&fsrc=RSS

I came across another interesting article about the issue of Evolutionist 'Creeps' and 'Jerks' recently, and I would like to share the following neat summary of the current desperate state of Evolutionism with you all:-

"The embarrassing intellectual debacle of evolution is in fact well explained in the prestigious British news magazine the “Economist” (December 2004 issue, article "Repeat after me") which describes the two current and conflicting schools of thought. On the one side we have the "Creeps" who believe, like Darwin and Dawkins, that evolution must have taken place gradually and over vast ages of time in order to lend the process any shred of possibility -- and on the other side we have the "Jerks" , the "punctuated equilibrium" pundits who think that evolution must have taken place in jumps, in order to explain the absence of "intermediate” or “unfit” forms in the fossil record.

Although both groups believe with absolute assurrance that evolution DID happen, they have no credible mechanism to explain HOW it could possibly have happened. They simply assume that it happened – and un-informed lay people believe them! The situation is in fact much like that in the Hans Anderson fable of the king’s new clothes, which had inane courtiers praising and comparing the finery of a garments that did not actually exist."

....and you can read all about how a 'died in the wool Darwininst' STOPPED being a 'Creep' and a 'Jerk' ..........and discovered "the self Developing Genome" which, amongst other things, FULLY EXPLAINS post-Creation Speciation!!!!!:D

http://www.creationfoundation.co.uk/Evolution/e4.html

....so here we have a conventional scientist (and Evolutionist) who has discovered a revolutionary NEW speciation mechanism......but nobody is 'beating a path to his door'.......as Evolutionists would have us believe would happen when somebody discovers a new scientific breakthrough in our understanding of life processes.......because "the self Developing Genome" doesn't 'fit' in with Orthodox Darwinism.....and is supportive of Creation!!!!!:eek::D

The above article describes the discovery of "the self Developing Genome" as follows:-
"...just such an orchestrating, or "gene switching", mechanism has now been discovered in dogs -- and can explain how one ancient pair of dogs could have made possible all the breeds we now have. (Editor's note: Ancient Jewish tradition has it that Noah called them "Rover" and "Lassie".)"
......."Rover" and "Lassie"....I just love it.....now WHY didn't I think of that!!!!:D:eek:

....and the final 'nail in the coffin' of Spontaneous 'Goo to You' Evolution is provided in a recent article as follows:-
"A recent article of the above title in the British "New Scientist" magazine (27 May 2006, page 16 ) says: "Another direct challenge has been posed to one of the cornerstones of biology, Mendel's laws of inheritance" -- which state that the characteristics of a particular offspring are dictated by dna, by the combination of dominant and recessive genes in the two parents.

However, in direct violation of Mendel's laws, researchers at a university in Nice, in France, have now discovered in breeding experiments involving mice with brown tails and spotted tails that even after several generations, puppy mice may be born with spotted tails when neither parent possesses the relevant genes."
...so here we have EPIGENETIC mechanisms maintaining .......and in some cases producing phenotypical variety......WITHOUT mutations (which are the 'bedrock' of neo-Darwinian Evolution)!!!!:D
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics/mg19025534.500-mendels-laws-of-inheritance-challenged.html

The article also summarises the irony of Theistic Evolutionists proposing (non-Biblical) Divine intervention to 'rescue' the Theory of Materialistic Evolution from it's obvious invalidity and impossibliity....
"....And so the search for a credible creative mechanism continues – and it seems unfortunate that some Christians, blinded by science, so kindly try to let evolutionists off the hook of their own error by suggesting that perhaps God did make it happen that way by a series of guided miracles, when the Bible and the facts of life on earth tell a different story.":D
.
.

Galvasean

J C, I don't see how any of that can be viewed as a threat to evolution, let alone the proverbial 'nail in the coffin'.
What you posted is barely an argument.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

J C, I don't see how any of that can be viewed as a threat to evolution, let alone the proverbial 'nail in the coffin'.
What you posted is barely an argument.

........anyway do tell us what we all want to know........are you an Evolutionist 'Creep'......or are you a 'Jerk'?????:eek::pac::):D;)

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

J C, I don't see how any of that can be viewed as a threat to evolution, let alone the proverbial 'nail in the coffin'.
What you posted is barely an argument.

.......the fact that we have now scientifically established that there is an epigenetic "self developing genome" mechanism which explains how Noah's two dogs (Rover and Lassie) gave us all of the diversity that we see in the Dog Kind today ......is indeed a very big (and long) 'nail in the coffin' of materialistic evolutionist accounts of Human History!!!!:):cool::D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...so here we have NON-GENETIC mechanisms maintaining .......and in some cases producing phenotypical variety......WITHOUT mutations (which are the 'bedrock' of neo-Darwinian Evolution)!!!!:D

Well done for not reading the actually article you yourself reference :rolleyes:

"The latest such effect, described by a team led by Minoo Rassoulzadegan at Sophia Antipolis University in Nice, France, shows that RNA, as well as DNA, can carry information from one generation to another - a clear violation of the cherished notion of Mendelian inheritance."

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Well done for not reading the actually article you yourself reference :rolleyes:

"The latest such effect, described by a team led by Minoo Rassoulzadegan at Sophia Antipolis University in Nice, France, shows that RNA, as well as DNA, can carry information from one generation to another - a clear violation of the cherished notion of Mendelian inheritance."

.....I read the article!!!
Up to now, it was difficult (actually impossible) for Evolutionists to explain how DNA acquired its information dense genetics......but they NOW face the FURTHER (impossible) task of explaining how the "self developing genome" came to be.
The previously cited article eloquently describes the dilemma currently facing Evolutionists as they battle to keep their faith in Spontaneous 'Goo to You' Evolution :-

"But where does Derek (Hough) think the first magical self developing genome came from? Since it must be far too complex to have possibly evolved on earth, he suggests that it must have arrived on a comet from a distant galaxy, or one of the infinite number of parallel universes envisioned by cosmologists!":eek:

......"keeping the faith" in Evolution despite the overwhelming evidence for Creation, may not be as difficult for Evolutionists, as it might first appear........
........anybody who already believes that they are a direct descendant of a 'Slime Ball'......has demonstrated that they possess very great faith indeed!!!:eek::D

.......Evolution has now reached the point where 'parallel universes' are required to explain away the fact that spontaneously producing even a small protein, require all of the time and matter in the 'Big Bang Universe' to produce it!!!!:D:)

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.......the fact that we have now scientifically established that there is an epigenetic "self developing genome" mechanism which explains how Noah's two dogs (Rover and Lassie) gave us all of the diversity that we see in the Dog Kind today ......is indeed a very big (and long) 'nail in the coffin' of materialistic evolutionist accounts of Human History!!!!:):cool::D

You made on heck of an incredible leap from 'self developing genome' to 'Noah's two dogs'. Still far from this 'nail in the coffin' you speak of. Where is the data to support your claim that the pair of basal dogs belonged to Noah?

Oh and I'd be more of a 'Creep' if you must know.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

You made on heck of an incredible leap from 'self developing genome' to 'Noah's two dogs'. Still far from this 'nail in the coffin' you speak of. Where is the data to support your claim that the pair of basal dogs belonged to Noah?

.......I haven't had sight of a copy of Noah's Dog License........but the fact that RAPID speciation is possible means that we have SCIENTIFIC evidence for Noah's Ark and the resultant speciation and dispersal of animals after the Flood......i
......and this is indeed a very big (and long) 'nail in the coffin' of materialistic evolutionist accounts of Human History!!!!!!:D:eek:

Galvasean wrote: »

Oh and I'd be more of a 'Creep' if you must know.

.....I used to be a bit of an Evolutionist 'Jerk' myself......but all that changed when I discovered the validity of Creation Science!!!!!!:pac::):D

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

....and you can read all about how a 'died in the wool Darwininst' STOPPED being a 'Creep' and a 'Jerk' ..........and discovered "the self Developing Genome" which, amongst other things, FULLY EXPLAINS post-Creation Speciation!!!!!:D

Derek Houghs only had a postulation (he has no proof) for how things might be evolving using genes that pre-emptive natural conditions to give "meaningful mutations", it can explain how a large number of different type of animal can come from one type of animal, but does not claim this happens on a biblical timescale, and does not claim that this somehow puts the "nail in the coffin" for all evolution science.

J C wrote:

....so here we have a conventional scientist (and Evolutionist) who has discovered a revolutionary NEW speciation mechanism

Again he hasn't discovered anything, all he has is a theory, no proof.

J C wrote: »

"A recent article of the above title in the British "New Scientist" magazine (27 May 2006, page 16 ) says: "Another direct challenge has been posed to one of the cornerstones of biology, Mendel's laws of inheritance" -- which state that the characteristics of a particular offspring are dictated by dna, by the combination of dominant and recessive genes in the two parents.

However, in direct violation of Mendel's laws, researchers at a university in Nice, in France, have now discovered in breeding experiments involving mice with brown tails and spotted tails that even after several generations, puppy mice may be born with spotted tails when neither parent possesses the relevant genes."
...so here we have EPIGENETIC mechanisms maintaining .......and in some cases producing phenotypical variety......WITHOUT mutations (which are the 'bedrock' of neo-Darwinian Evolution)!!!!:D
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics/mg19025534.500-mendels-laws-of-inheritance-challenged.html
.

Did you actually read the article? Even the abstract on the the link tells you that all they've shown is that RNA and DNA can pass down information, not just genes. This questions the mechanism of Mendels Laws, not evolution.

Mendel's laws underlie almost all of genetics. They state, for example, that it is the combination of dominant and recessive genes inherited from the parents that dictates an offspring's characteristics.
In the main, this is true, but examples of inherited traits are being discovered that deviate from this rule. These "epigenetic" effects are caused not by genes themselves, but by inherited factors that affect gene expression in later generations. The latest such effect, described by a team led by Minoo Rassoulzadegan at Sophia Antipolis University in Nice, France, shows that RNA, as well as DNA, can carry information from one generation to another - a clear violation of the cherished notion of Mendelian inheritance.

Ciaran500

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Again he hasn't discovered anything, all he has is a theory, no proof.

Then its not a theory

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Derek Houghs only had a postulation (he has no proof) for how things might be evolving using genes that pre-emptive natural conditions to give "meaningful mutations", it can explain how a large number of different type of animal can come from one type of animal, but does not claim this happens on a biblical timescale, and does not claim that this somehow puts the "nail in the coffin" for all evolution science.

.......as I have already said, the fact that we have now scientifically established that there is an epigenetic "self developing genome" mechanism which explains how Noah's two dogs (Rover and Lassie) gave us all of the diversity that we see in the Dog Kind today ......is indeed a very big (and long) 'nail in the coffin' of materialistic evolutionist accounts of Human History!!!!:D

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Did you actually read the article? Even the abstract on the the link tells you that all they've shown is that RNA and DNA can pass down information, not just genes. This questions the mechanism of Mendels Laws, not evolution.

.........as I have already said, I DID read the article!!!
Up to now, it was difficult (actually impossible) for Evolutionists to explain how DNA acquired its information dense genetics......but they NOW face the FURTHER (impossible) task of explaining how the "self developing genome" came to be.......
.......and Evolution has now reached the point where 'parallel universes' are required to explain away the fact that spontaneously producing even a small protein, requires all of the time and matter in the 'Big Bang Universe' to produce it!!!!:eek::)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Mark Hamill
Again he hasn't discovered anything, all he has is a theory, no proof.

Ciaran500
Then its not a theory

......Derek Hough has BOTH a valid Scientific Theory AND proof!!!!
.....and "the self Developing Genome" is being increasingly studied by ID and Creation Scientists that are operating at the 'cutting edge' of scientific research!!!!!:cool::)

J C

.....this can only be believed if you look at the world through the 'rose-tinted glasses'.........of neo-Darwinism:-
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_01.html

.....and for the mathematicians on this thread.....here is a worked example of how the Spontaneous Evolution of functional proteins is a mathematical impossiblility!!!
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_03.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_05.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_06.html

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

......Derek Hough has BOTH a valid Scientific Theory AND proof!!!!

Actually if you read his work more closely you will realize he has no concrete proof at all. Therefore it is certainly not fact. Without sufficient evidence it is not even a theory, merely a hypothesis (or idea if you don't like that word).
Again he makes no reference to Noah's pet dogs. That was a leap you added yourself.
At best you could say that his ideas allude to the possibility of said genetic information coming from Noah's pet dogs, but admit that far more research is needed before you could prove such a position.
Or you could just continue bearing false witness. It's really up to you.

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

.......as I have already said, the fact that we have now scientifically established that there is an epigenetic "self developing genome" mechanism which explains how Noah's two dogs (Rover and Lassie) gave us all of the diversity that we see in the Dog Kind today ......is indeed a very big (and long) 'nail in the coffin' of materialistic evolutionist accounts of Human History!!!!:D

Can you show this evidence? The link you gave refers to an article by "the Economist" (an article I can't read as I'm not a member of the Economist), a economy magazine, not a scientific journal.
Besides that, a self-developing genome doesn't really mean anything for Creationist science because a) all the theory states is there might be genes that adapt to enviroment changes before they happen as opposed to after (which just means that natural selection is more efficient than preiviously thought) and b) because no-one, outside of creationists, are claiming that genes can "self-develop" on a biblical timescale (ie from Noahs two dogs 4000-6000 years ago to all the dogs today) as they would have to explain why humans haven't evolved into different species during that time too.

J C wrote: »

......but they NOW face the FURTHER (impossible) task of explaining how the "self developing genome" came to be.......
.......and Evolution has now reached the point where 'parallel universes' are required to explain away the fact that spontaneously producing even a small protein, requires all of the time and matter in the 'Big Bang Universe' to produce it!!!!:eek::)

.....and for the mathematicians on this thread.....here is a worked example of how the Spontaneous Evolution of functional proteins is a mathematical impossiblility!!!
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mole...iology_03.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mole...iology_04.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mole...iology_05.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mole...iology_06.html

There have been posts made before showing why this type of maths doesn't apply. Basically your looking at the odds in the wrong direction. Think of it like this: Lets say that there is 6 billion people in the world and lets say there are 6 billion computers in the world. Well the odds that you, 1 person from that 6 billion, used your computer, 1 from that 6 billion, to make your last post is 1 in 36,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1/36 quintillion) and this ignores the odds of you being at your computer at the right time, logging onto the right webiste, going to the right page, pressing each of the right keys etc. But obviously you did, and thats despite the astronomical odds of it happening.

J C

....and for those who scoff at the idea that Noah's children could be the ancestors of all mankind here is a much more recent example of a similar occurrence:-

The Tin Prai tribe are a community of settled farmers in Northern Thialand, and they have a story handed down through the generations of a boy and a girl being expelled as children from their tribe into the neighbouring forests about 500 years ago.....where they promptly lost all contact with the outside World.
The boy and girl were believed to have founded a new tribe of hunter-gatherers called the Mlabri People who had very limited, if any, contact with neighboring peoples until they were discovered again in 1936 by European explorers.
Recent mtDNA, Autosomal and Y-Chromosome DNA Diversity analyses have confirmed that the 300 or so Mlabri People alive today are descended from one woman and less than four men.....proving that viable populations of Humans can arise thousands of years AFTER the Flood from very limited 'founder populations'!!!!!!
Indeed, the DNA and linguistic evidence indicates that the Mlabri probably arose from the one boy and one girl that were expelled by the Tin Prai tribe over 500 years ago!!!!

...and you can read all about this remarkable story here:-
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1044832