The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

godspenis wrote: »

You'll find all your answers to your silly questions here :eek:

http://www.catholic.ie/


:pac:

.....is this a REAL Roman Catholic site......!!!!!:)

godspenis

its the irish catholic one. funny bunch of christians

J C

godspenis wrote: »

Lol,

right so you only act like a christian?

.....Christians DON'T have to be foolhardy.....and sensible precautions SHOULD be taken when shaking hands with somebody who calls themselves 'penis'......especially when they claim divine proportions!!!!!:D

J C

MooseJam wrote: »

hey JC isn't muck to man exactly how the creation myth says god created adam, perhaps you should refer to it as muck to man creationism hence forth

....it was 'Dust to Man Creation' actually......but the CRUCIAL difference with 'Muck to Man Evolution' was that an omnipotent God did the 'Dust to Man Creation' !!!!:eek:

.......and I have no problem with anybody referring to the Creation of Man as 'Dust to Man Creation'.......it WAS what happened....after all!!!!!:pac::):D

.....indeed we are all physically dust......and unto dust we shall return!!!!!

J C

godspenis wrote: »

its the irish catholic one. funny bunch of christians

....The Irish Catholic website is at
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/

PDN

godspenis wrote: »

hi,

just wanted to introduce myself

xoxox

Hi and goodbye.

This troll is banned.

J C

PDN wrote: »

Hi and goodbye.

This troll is banned.

.......you are the weakest link.........Goodbye!!!!

......ooouch!!!!:eek::D

.....or, if one is an Evolutionist, should that be.......you are the missing link......Hello!!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

All Quotes in Red = AtomicHorror

One is verifiable by observation, the other is not. Seems fair to me.
......and when has 'Muck to Man Evolution' been verified by observation???

Never, because you made it up in this thread. As for evolution, the data has been shown to you countless times. Lenski's paper, for example. Please show me how it is incorrect.

J C wrote: »

So what you're saying is that your earlier contention was untrue. Good. Atheists use evolution, but it is hardly theirs exclusively.
.........'Muck to Man Evolution' .......via non-intelligent processes......which is what is mandated in American Public Schools...... certainly IS exclusive to Atheists and their 'fellow travellers'!!!!!:)

If by "'Muck to Man Evolution'" you mean evolution and if by "fellow travellers" you mean mainstream Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, a massively heterogenous population numbering in the hundreds of millions, then I guess you could call it exclusive in some manner.

J C wrote: »

Not really because Creationism is an exclusively Christian notion. Evolution is science. It demands no particular religious predisposition, nor does it require a lack thereof.
.....as I have said 'Muck to Man Evolution' has never been observed, is not science, and is the 'origins explanation' of the Atheist Faith....and it's 'fellow travellers'!!!!:)

Why are we concerned with 'Muck to Man Evolution'? You made it up.

J C wrote: »

(Secularism is) the philosophy of separating decision-making processes from any one specific faith. It's purpose is to allow all to be governed fairly without being dictated to by a church which they may not subscribe to.
.......so what do you say to being dictated to by the Atheist Faith (in 'Muck to man Evolution').......if you don't subscribe to the Atheist Faith?????

It's not a faith.

J C wrote: »

As stated countless times, no. Atheism is the lack of faith in anything which cannot be observed. Essentially an extension of the scientific method to one's life as a whole.
........so WHY does Atheism then believe in 'Muck to Man Evolution' and 'Abiogenesis'......even though NEITHER has ever been observed????

Atheists are reasonably confident that abiogenesis occured. It is not scientific theory though, and so there is caution there. It has been shown to be possible in the lab and in the absence of a testable alternative, it is the current best candidate for the origin of life.

Atheists do not believe in 'Muck to Man Evolution' because only a very few of them have ever heard of it. Specifically the atheists on boards. That'd be down to the fact that you invented it.

J C wrote: »

Your argument relies on the notion that evolution is based on faith. It is based on observation. It also relies on the notion that evolution is the tool of some faith-based atheism. It is not, as such atheism does not exist. Education systems have an obligation to teach the truth as it is best-understood at any given time. At this time, evolution is as strongly supported by the facts as gravity. To fail to teach it would be criminal. To suggest that it is false based upon unverifiable assumptions would be irresponsible.
......so you want to extend the American concept which criminalises teachers who question Evolution to Ireland?????:eek:

I would expect any teacher who made speculation a significant part of their teaching plan to lose their job. I would not consider it reasonable to take legal action against such teachers as it serves no purpose.

J C wrote: »

.....see my previous answer in relation to the NON-OBSERVABILITY of 'MTM Evolution' and Abiogenesis!!!!

If abiogenesis can be re-created in a laboratory, then it has been observed. "MTM Evolution" does not exist so we would not expect to observe it.

J C wrote: »

Abiogensis is not taught in schools. Muck to man evolution is not taught in schools. The theory of evolution is taught as part of biology courses in school as it is the current scientific consensus.
......so ONLY Natural Selection and 'Genetic Drift' within Created Kinds is taught in schools?????
.......I have no problem with that!!!!

They are taught the rudiments of natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, gene flow etc... they are taught the concept that species arise from parent species via these processes and that the species are all ultimately inter-related. The origins of life are treated as appropriate, as an uncertain area.

Created Kinds are not mentioned, as the term has no meaning. The notion of "species" (and the other taxa) is treated as relatively concrete at second level for simplicity sake, and the flaws of the linnean system are then covered at third level.

J C wrote: »

They'll learn about Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism in RE classes too. Atheism shouldn't be in there too? RE classes don't claim any of these movements to be correct.
.....even though you don't believe that Atheism should be taught in RE classes......the fact is that Atheism is being taught as a form of RELIGION.....and that is fair enough........because Atheism IS objectively a RELIGION!!!!!:D

Once again, equality of status is not the same as equality of substance. It is appropriate to discuss non-religion when discussing religion. I wouldn't consider it appropriate to bring the detailed scientific rationale behind atheism into the debate but rather to refer to whatever parts of the science syllabus are cited by atheists as supporting them.

J C wrote: »

......my only question is why any State should grant the 'origins explantion' of the Atheistic Religion special status over any other Religion's 'origins explanation'??????

It is not granted status on that basis. It's validity comes from the fact that it has been tested and found robust. The alternatives have not.

J C wrote: »

Your links don't work.
.....sorry......I have now fixed it!!!:o

Thanks, I'll have a read.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

1. Why do you have a signature of a plane 'going down in flames'......is it perhaps a subconscious expression of how you REALLY feel about Evolution????

Given the image link and the text on the image it would be trivial for you to answer this question for yourself. It's not going down in flames, it's just flying.

J C wrote: »

2. Are you 'related' to 'Atomic Kitten'?????:pac::):D:eek:

Our genetic identity is at least 90%. Former member Kerry Katona is not human, or indeed organic, so there is no relation there.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....it was 'Dust to Man Creation' actually......but the CRUCIAL difference with 'Muck to Man Evolution' was that an omnipotent God did the 'Dust to Man Creation' !!!!:eek:

.......and I have no problem with anybody referring to the Creation of Man as 'Dust to Man Creation'.......it WAS what happened....after all!!!!!:pac::):D

Evolution does not say that man was evolved from muck. So, as per usual, when you insist on using such terms people don't know what you're talking about. That suits you just fine though, since ambiguous language means that you can't be pinned to an actual scientific position.

J C wrote: »

.....indeed we are all physically dust......and unto dust we shall return!!!!!

That at least is something we can agree on.

Galvasean

I was a way for a few days there. Glad to see nothing much has changed.
Keep fighting the good fight all!

The Mad Hatter

AH, just noticed the site in your sig. Had a very entertaining twenty minutes reading. Will go through it properly soon.

garrincha62

It's gas the way people get their goat up about a book as mad as the bible. Thankfully I don't suffer from superstition and base my worldview on facts, evidence and so forth. However I do thoroughly enjoy reading these threads but always have the sneaky feeling that the creationist posters are just stirring the pot to annoy the athiests...

god, I wish they'd make a Hollywood version of the Bible. Imagine the sequels!!

Bible I - Yahweh Nights Uncovered-On the town in Sodom & Gomorrah.
Bible II - Bible Begins!! Herod v Moses starring John Hurt as Herod & Chuck Norris as Moses.
Bible III - Jesus H Christ-the Movie- starring the Jesus from The Big Lebowski
Jurassic Park IV/Return of JC - Bibliosaurus Rex v Jeff Goldblum and the rest of it, in a modern context.

It has potential methinks

Zombrex

garrincha62 wrote: »

but always have the sneaky feeling that the creationist posters are just stirring the pot to annoy the athiests...

Some are.

But then this is a forum about discussing Christianity, which Biblical Creationism falls under, and Christians on this forum often claim that atheist posters who come here simply to post about how stupid their religion is are just stirring the pot as well...

Dave!

Wicknight wrote: »

Christians on this forum often claim that atheist posters who come here simply to post about how stupid their religion is are just stirring the pot as well...

Some are :pac:

Galvasean

Found this while looking for Walking with Dinosaurs clips (go figure):

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

Cute, pity the guys have virtually no idea what dinosaurs were like.

AtomicHorror

Dave! wrote: »

Some are :pac:

Doesn't help us sadly! Those who like to generalise can point to the trouble makers as some sort of example of what Atheists are like.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

Cute, pity the guys have virtually no idea what dinosaurs were like.

Science, redneck style ... I must say the mullet was is probably the strongest evidence against Intelligent Design one can think of :pac:

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, tell me how an absence of "Sin, suffering and death" can accompany evolution. Are you suggesting the RCC means "Sin, suffering and death" are not literal, but metaphoric?
Literal is dependent on context, as the Bible clearly demonstrates.

As the current Pope said in 1995

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.

I would imagine you believe in the spiritual realm, that exists outside of the physical realm of atoms and matter. It is funny that you have such trouble then with viewing Genesis as a story about the spiritual creation of man.

I see where your confusion about RC dogma comes from. But this 'spiritual' aspect of man is not what the dogma I pointed to dealt with: it specifically concerned man's bodily suffering and death:

The Divine Work of Creation

The Doctrine of Revelation Regarding Man or "Christian Anthropology"

The first man was created by God. (De fide.)

The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

Man consists of two essential parts--a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)

The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)

Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)

Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)

A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)

The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)

God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)

Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)

The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)

The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)

The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)

Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)

Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)

Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)

Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.

Adam's sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)

Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)

Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)

In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)

Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

I have unlined the relevant phrases.

Can you give me an idea of a theory of evolution that would exclude bodily suffering and death (for man at least)? I always thought suffering and death were intrinsic parts of Natural Selection.

Perhaps then you can stop sending us all on wild goose chases to find your point presumingly buried deep in the countless AiG articles you link to.

Why would the scientific arguments and research of an organisation be invalidated if one or some of its leaders were paying themselves too much? I'm not saying that is the case with AiG, but it is the allegation. Do you apply that to all other institutions?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Can you give me an idea of a theory of evolution that would exclude bodily suffering and death (for man at least)?

There is none.

[EDIT]
I should update that so you don't go off again on one of your "You better speak to Robin!" rants. Suffering and death are actually nothing to do with the theory of evolution. I have a computer program that works on the theory of evolution with virtual replicating entities and none of them suffer or "die". It is perfectly possible to give you an example of evolution applied to a situation without suffering and death, but I know that wasn't what you were actually asking

Suffering and death do go hand in hand with biological life on Earth. Most animals, including humans, have evolved neurological systems to inform them about dangerous situations (both physically and mentally) that manifest these warnings the form of pain. This leads to suffering in animals that experience this self-defense system. Again this has very little to do with the theory of evolution, but it is a by-product of how animals have evolved on earth. It would still be perfectly consistent with evolution if before Adam and Eve animals didn't suffer or die, but it wouldn't be perfectly consistent with the evidence we have about Earths history. There is no theory of biological evolution on Earth that doesn't include death and suffering (for some animals)

All that is rather irrelevant because if you had read the piece from the Pope you would know that Catholics interpret Genesis as a spiritual story, not a physical one.
[/EDIT]

I'm confused. Did you read the quote from the Pope.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why would the scientific arguments and research of an organisation be invalidated if one or some of its leaders were paying themselves too much?

AiG doesn't carry out "scientific research", as you yourself put forward when people were attacking them.

What they do is selectively put forward opinion. The ability to represent a true and non-biased assessment of topics is called into question if an organisation, already admittedly biased towards a particular religious position, is then exposed to be fraudsters interested in making money above anything else.

Basically the motivation for Ham and his fellow "Christians" has been demonstrated not to be a search for the truth. So can you trust the opinion they put forward?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not saying that is the case with AiG, but it is the allegation. Do you apply that to all other institutions?

I certainly do.

The irony is that if Answers in Genesis were actually carrying out proper scientific research this wouldn't be an issue, because all their results could be verified independently of the scientists involved. Science is about testable models, not opinions or assessment (a position I still think you don't understand)

It is precisely because AiG peddle in opinion and personal assessment of evidence, rather than science, that causes this problem, because opinion, rather than science, can be heavily biased towards one position, and I think the organisers of AiG have demonstrated to have a strong bias towards peddling what can make them money from gullible and naive Christians.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I always thought suffering and death were intrinsic parts of Natural Selection.

No.

The three fundamental components of any system which becomes subject to natural selection are fecundity, inheritance and mutation.

.

PDN

garrincha62 wrote: »

god, I wish they'd make a Hollywood version of the Bible. Imagine the sequels!!

Bible I - Yahweh Nights Uncovered-On the town in Sodom & Gomorrah.
Bible II - Bible Begins!! Herod v Moses starring John Hurt as Herod & Chuck Norris as Moses.
Bible III - Jesus H Christ-the Movie- starring the Jesus from The Big Lebowski
Jurassic Park IV/Return of JC - Bibliosaurus Rex v Jeff Goldblum and the rest of it, in a modern context.

It has potential methinks

Hollywood versions of the Bible. I'm presuming you must be a teenager, or at least someone with little knowledge of cinematic history?

Yes, they could have produced many films couldn't they?

Sodom and Gomorrah with Stewart Granger

David and Bathsheba with Gregory Peck

Solomon and Sheba with Yul Brynner & Gina Lollobrigida

Esther and the King with Joan Collins (:eek:)

David and Goliath with Orson Welles

The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston & Yul Brynner

The Greatest Story ever Told With Max von Sydow, Charlton Heston & Telly Savalas

King David with Richard Gere

Of course more recent offerings include The Life of Brian, The Passion of the Christ, The Last Temptation of the Christ, One Night With The King, and the truly awful Left Behind movies.

Galvasean

There was also Nativity Story a ouple of years ago.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

No.

The three fundamental components of any system which becomes subject to natural selection are fecundity, inheritance and mutation.

.

Thanks. But where does the selection come in if the less fit do not die off?

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

But where does the selection come in if the less fit do not die off?

In general terms, organisms are "naturally selected" over time for their ability to reproduce successfully and fill their ecological niche, and not for their ability to die. The effects of pre-viablity death, or post-viability non-reproduction varies according to species in ways that are reasonably well understood.

Additionally, if nobody or nothing ever died, and reproduction occurred without limit, then the ecosystem would suffer from Malthusian population growth until lack of sufficient resources caused organisms to limit their population either by some kind of resource starvation (all life forms) or by contraception (generally only humans).

BTW, the phrase "survival of the fittest" does not summarize evolution at all accurately which is why Darwin, and most subsequent biologists, generally avoid the phrase. If you're looking for something memorable which does encapsulate what evolution describes, then the phrase "differential reproductive success" is much, much closer, since it emphasizes that reproduction is the principal dimension.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Suffering and death do go hand in hand with biological life on Earth. Most animals, including humans, have evolved neurological systems to inform them about dangerous situations (both physically and mentally) that manifest these warnings the form of pain. This leads to suffering in animals that experience this self-defense system. Again this has very little to do with the theory of evolution, but it is a by-product of how animals have evolved on earth. It would still be perfectly consistent with evolution if before Adam and Eve animals didn't suffer or die,

As I asked Robin, But where does the selection come in if the less fit do not die off?

but it wouldn't be perfectly consistent with the evidence we have about Earths history. There is no theory of biological evolution on Earth that doesn't include death and suffering (for some animals)

All that is rather irrelevant because if you had read the piece from the Pope you would know that Catholics interpret Genesis as a spiritual story, not a physical one.

I'm confused. Did you read the quote from the Pope.

Yes, I did read it. The pope is certainly making Genesis to be only about the 'spiritual' origin of man. However, Roman Catholic dogma - the article I quoted - deals with man's physical nature also. It is the 'infallible' dogma that excludes suffering and death from man's original state.

So I was wondering how biological evolution could have occurred without it. I'm glad you have confirmed it didn't - so now the RCC has a choice to make between evolution and their dogma.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm not saying that is the case with AiG, but it is the allegation. Do you apply that to all other institutions?
I certainly do.

So if the President and/or Directors of the National Institutes of Natural Sciences, Inter-University Research Institute Corporation were to pay themselves more than you reckon a fair wage, you would dismiss the material the organisation produces?

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

In general terms, organisms are "naturally selected" over time for their ability to reproduce successfully and fill their ecological niche, and not for their ability to die. The effects of pre-viablity death, or post-viability non-reproduction varies according to species in ways that are reasonably well understood.

Additionally, if nobody or nothing ever died, and reproduction occurred without limit, then the ecosystem would suffer from Malthusian population growth until lack of sufficient resources caused organisms to limit their population either by some kind of resource starvation (all life forms) or by contraception (generally only humans).

Without death, the faster breeding species would predominate, but not displace the slower breeders. Indeed, would any distinction in breeding levels arise, since interbreeding would level out any differences? What you would have would be a homogenised species, ever increasing. Where would selection operate here?

The non-dying mankind of the RCC dogma ended before they could reach saturation point for the earth, as death entered with Adam's sin. The question remains, How did Adam come to be if death was not part of his physical nature?

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

So if the President and/or Directors of the National Institutes of Natural Sciences, Inter-University Research Institute Corporation were to pay themselves more than you reckon a fair wage, you would dismiss the material the organisation produces?

I believe he would question it.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Without death, the faster breeding species would predominate, but not displace the slower breeders. Indeed, would any distinction in breeding levels arise, since interbreeding would level out any differences?

I'm not at all sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that, over time, all species would merge and create a single uber-species? There are many, many reasons why that'll never happen and I don't have the time to list them at the moment. Suffice it to say that you would run out of resources on the earth a long, long time before you could convince a whale to mate with a billy-goat successfully.

By disallowing death, you also have a much more basic problem which is food supply. Photosynthesis, or equivalent processes, do not supply enough energy to sustain animal-level life forms, so animals tend to eat plants or other animals, and plants are left to do the low-level energy-conversion. Hence, a theoretical Adam in a death-free world could only eat fruit, nuts, milk, and other plant or animal by-products, and never eat meat, cereals, eggs and so on. Sounds awful to me!

BTW, natural selection operates in a number of different ways, roughly in line with what I think you may be suggesting - one recent theory proposes what's known as r/K selection, in which faster rates of breeding and limited adaptability, is balanced against lower rates of breeding and greater adaptability. Rats and most birds, for example, are r-selected, while humans and elephants are K-selected. Differing strategies, but both guarantee equivalent levels of reproductive success in the long term.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Where would selection operate here?

Selection is going to be difficult to see happening, if death isn't going to help by removing, over time, the genetic-lines which are less good at reproduction. Selection will still of course happen, but it's going to take a very thick sheaf of genealogical charts to track who or what's selecting better.

wolfsbane wrote: »

How did Adam come to be if death was not part of his physical nature?

What do you mean?

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Without death, the faster breeding species would predominate, but not displace the slower breeders. Indeed, would any distinction in breeding levels arise, since interbreeding would level out any differences? What you would have would be a homogenised species, ever increasing. Where would selection operate here?

Considering this is all VERY hypothetical I'll give it my best shot. Perhaps the creatures would simply run out of room/food and end up being very cramped/hungry?
In fact I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. To be honest your notion of interbreeding levelling out differences is at best illogical and at worst nonsense.
May I suggest we get back to debating things which are potentially plausible?