The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As the others have said, current thinking is that mammals did not evolve from reptiles, let alone snakes specifically. The first land organisms diverged into two groups, the amniotes and the amphibians. The amniotes themselves diverged into two groups, the reptiles and the synapsids, which eventually gave rise to mammals. The reptiles evolved in parallel to the synapsids, not in sequence. The above may turn out to be inaccurate, but we'll happily accept evidence on that.

I'm not so sure. Didn't it go: amphibians -> reptiles -> synapsids -> mammals?

edit: Oh and I wouldn't go calling them the firs land organisms either. The arthropods beat them to it by some time scale.

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I wonder why I bother refuting your posts sometimes J C. It seems whenever I make the effort you simply wait until the next page to post and ignore the substantive points.

You've noticed that, yeah?

At this stage, I think it would be possible to create a database of all the posts and bits of posts that J C has ignored. Some clever computer programmer could make it so that every time he says something that's already been refuted (and I believe we're now at the stage where he can't say anything else), it just reposts the original response.

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

just reposts the original response.

I remember doing that at some point for a laugh. Didn't make a jot of difference, though.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Didn't it go: amphibians -> reptiles -> synapsids -> mammals?

edit: Oh and I wouldn't go calling them the firs land organisms either. The arthropods beat them to it by some time scale.

I've seen models where the evolution was more parallel than in series. I'm not sure which is the more modern take on the arrangement. Taking a look at Wikipedia they seem to go with the notion that amphibians and synapsids split from the tetrapoda. Perhaps it's merely a simplification.

You may be right about the arthropoda... I'll correct myself so, the first quadrapedal land animals? Those being the ones evolved from jawed fish.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

A guy using a woman's name on an internet discussion board - there's got to be a verse in Leviticus or Deuteronomy that allows us to stone you for that!

If Leviticus actually mentioned the internet there's no way I'd be an atheist.

Flamed Diving

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If Leviticus actually mentioned the internet there's no way I'd be an atheist.

I'm sure there is some ambiguous phrase in there that could be interpreted as the internet.

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm sure there is some ambiguous phrase in there that could be interpreted as the internet.

Exodus 20:18

Thou shall not allow thy gaze to fall upon noodie pictures on the internet.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Didn't it go: amphibians -> reptiles -> synapsids -> mammals?

edit: Oh and I wouldn't go calling them the firs land organisms either. The arthropods beat them to it by some time scale.

....like I have said.......
......the Evolutionists believe that snakes (reptiles).......evolved into Man........
.......so they actually believe that ALL men are 'evolved snakes'.......with nothing added but time.....and talk!!!!:pac::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I've seen models where the evolution was more parallel than in series. I'm not sure which is the more modern take on the arrangement. Taking a look at Wikipedia they seem to go with the notion that amphibians and synapsids split from the tetrapoda. Perhaps it's merely a simplification.

You may be right about the arthropoda... I'll correct myself so, the first quadrapedal land animals? Those being the ones evolved from jawed fish.

.......whatever you're having yourself......it's all an unfounded myth anyway!!!!!:pac::):D

......and a fish throwing itself up on land to become a Cow......is just as likely as a pig sprouting wings and flying......and BTW (for the Evolutionists on this thread) they are both IMPOSSIBLE!!!!:D

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, I also beleive in angels, God, the resurrection, etc. All marks of reality disconnect to the evolutionist - or do you have a reason one can pick and choose which bits of the Biblical account to beleive? Yes, because none of it is true.

I take it you meant No, because none of it is true, just as I meant believe but wrote beleive.

No is at least a consistent answer, in line with rejecting the possibility of a talking snake. The Theistic Evolutionist has the problem of justifying his picking and choosing.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

I think you may be confusing evolution with abiogenesis again. The differences have been explained here numerous times.

No, it is true regardless of abiogenesis. The Biblical account rules out evolution from existing biotic molecules-to-man.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Flamed Diving said:

I take it you meant No, because none of it is true, just as I meant believe but wrote beleive.

No is at least a consistent answer, in line with rejecting the possibility of a talking snake. The Theistic Evolutionist has the problem of justifying his picking and choosing.

Well, I beleive the question you asked was

or do you have a reason one can pick and choose which bits of the Biblical account to beleive?

To which I responded 'yes...'

Anyway, I prefer the idea of the bible being allegorical. However, I don't know enough about the bible to make a case for it.

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not in denial. Like you I happen to believe in the veracity of Genesis, I just view it's message it in a different way.

.......something like an Evolutionist believing that the veracity of Darwins 'Origin of Species' is derived from it being all about the Dot Com bubble!!!!!:D:)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nope. I would think that a 'God of the evolutionary gaps' is more consistent with young earth creationism rather than theistic evolution. I would also think that positing God of the gaps when knowledge fails us is really asking for trouble down the road.

.....WHERE are the gaps in the Genesis Account of Creation......God simply spoke......and it all came into being under the power of His magnificent omnipotence......with NO gaps!!!!!! :)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm at pains to explain this in a manner as devoid of insult as I can muster, JC. With the greatest respect to your beliefs regrading truth behind evolution, I really don't see how our opposing view impact our belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Assuming one of us is at some stage proved correct and the other incorrect, it really shouldn't overshadow the fact that we are Christians. My faith in Jesus isn't grounded upon my belief that apes turned into men.

.......I use to believe that too......but since I was Saved I have seen the tremendous damage that Evolution has done to the Christian Faith ............ a whole generation of young people have largely rejected the Bible.....on the (logical) basis that none of it could be trusted if the Genesis account couldn't be trusted .......
The belief that Evolution is true.....and Genesis isn't.......is the greatest 'recruiting agent' for Atheism.......and the most difficult stumbling block for potential Christians!!!!

.....if you don't believe me.......then just ask yourself WHY are the Atheists here defending Evolution 'to the hilt'......IF Evolution is the 'minor issue' that you claim it to be???

......the Atheists know that their ENTIRE Atheistic worldview is at stake here.......and THAT is why they have laboured so hard on this thread.......and elsewhere, defending the impossible......as if their very lives depended on it!!!!

.....'tis a pity that many Christians don't show a similar burning zeal to defend and promote their faith!!!!:D:)

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Same here. Just can't see why all the huffing & puffing about the term - unless it is prodding their sore spot (the odds against evolution).
See that is exactly the point.

If you are using the word "spontaneous" coupled with "evolution" in terms of the "odds against evolution" then you are misrepresenting the theory.

Evolution is not spontaneous, the odds of it happening are very very high. It is a naturally occurring process that will always happen given a certain set of circumstances, like dropping of a ball. What are the odds that a ball will drop if you are on a planet with gravity and you let go of it?

The certain set of circumstances arise by chance (a chance that JC has shown is beyond credibility) hence the evolution based on them is 'spontaneous'.

What are the odds you can win the lottery 52 weeks in a row? It is theoretically possible, since each event happens in a certain set of circumstances, but just as incredible as the biosphere having evolved. :D:D

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:
The certain set of circumstances arise by chance (a chance that JC has shown is beyond credibility) hence the evolution based on them is 'spontaneous'.

What are the odds you can win the lottery 52 weeks in a row? It is theoretically possible, since each event happens in a certain set of circumstances, but just as incredible as the biosphere having evolved. :D:D

The reason why this is wrong has been explained many times on this thread.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Not according to the vast majority of people who believe in Biblical creation.



No, if evolution is true your interpretation of Biblical Creation is not.

Given that evolution is true then it seems quite clear that your interpretation of Biblical Creation is wrong (as most Christians would no doubt tell you)

It would seem far more sensible to simply recognize that your interpretation is obviously flawed and look at a new interpretation, than to try and make out that everyone else is wrong but you.

It is rather ironic that you accuse evolutionists of arrogance.

Yes, like I could justly call myself an evolutionist if I interpreted Darwin as teaching the biosphere evolved from the dust over 6 days.

Creation = Darwinian Evolution is just as dishonest as Evolution = Biblical Creation. :pac::pac::pac:

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

The certain set of circumstances arise by chance (a chance that JC has shown is beyond credibility) hence the evolution based on them is 'spontaneous'.

JC herself is beyond credibility and her calculations have been shown to be junk many times over. It's not worth going through them again -- just look back through the thread and you should be able to find a few debunkings without much trouble.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....like I have said.......
......the Evolutionists believe that snakes (reptiles).......evolved into Man........
.......so they actually believe that ALL men are 'evolved snakes'.......with nothing added but time.....and talk!!!!:pac::):D

Do you have an 'off' button?
Seriously, nice of you to leave out the bit where I said no evolutionary biologist has ever suggested that humans evolved from snakes. Or maybe you are having touble grasping the concept that all reptiles are not snakes?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....like I have said.......
......the Evolutionists believe that snakes (reptiles).......evolved into Man........
.......so they actually believe that ALL men are 'evolved snakes'.......with nothing added but time.....and talk!!!!:pac::):D

Imagining for a moment that this were our contention, what of it? What is the point you are trying to make with this snake business?

J C wrote: »

.......whatever you're having yourself......it's all an unfounded myth anyway!!!!!:pac::):D

Even if we assume it is a myth, it is certainly not an unfounded one. I would not even call Creation unfounded, since it has obvious foundations in written and oral tradition. It merely fails to match any of our observations.

J C wrote: »

......and a fish throwing itself up on land to become a Cow......is just as likely as a pig sprouting wings and flying......and BTW (for the Evolutionists on this thread) they are both IMPOSSIBLE!!!!:D

Evolution does not claim that either event occurred nor that they are probable. If this is what you truly consider evolution to be, then it is no wonder you have such trouble with it. I'm quite sure that you are just lying though.

J C wrote: »

.......I use to believe that too......but since I was Saved I have seen the tremendous damage that Evolution has done to the Christian Faith ............ a whole generation of young people have largely rejected the Bible.....on the (logical) basis that none of it could be trusted if the Genesis account couldn't be trusted .......

And you once claimed that you were not afraid? Your fear is unfounded J C. Evolution will not kill your God. Just your infantile notion of Him. You really should be afraid of the physicists though.

J C wrote: »

The belief that Evolution is true.....and Genesis isn't.......is the greatest 'recruiting agent' for Atheism.......and the most difficult stumbling block for potential Christians!!!!

Yes it's such a tempting offer. An amoral and dry, if elegant piece of science, to recruit people to the belief that theirs is a material and finite life with no objective meaning. You must admit J C, that this does not add up. If this appeals to people more than faith, then what is wrong with faith?

J C wrote: »

.....if you don't believe me.......then just ask yourself WHY are the Atheists here defending Evolution 'to the hilt'......IF Evolution is the 'minor issue' that you claim it to be???

It's very obvious why atheists would defend Evolution. They would of course consider it to be true. That is not at all the question that should occupy you. Nor is it the once that troubles you. The question that you wrestle with is why scientists of all fields and faiths, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Wiccans also defend it.

J C wrote: »

......the Atheists know that their ENTIRE Atheistic worldview is at stake here.......and THAT is why they have laboured so hard on this thread.......and elsewhere, defending the impossible......as if their very lives depended on it!!!!

I wonder just how many Atheists and Agnostics would turn to faith if Evolution were falsified. I'm sure many of them would be glad to do so. Others would never allow that theory alone to dictate their reason. There is no singular motive nor agenda here. As for fighting for our lives... were that the motive then surely embracing a faith that included everlasting life would be more likely action than defending evolution.

J C wrote: »

.....'tis a pity that the Christians don't show a similar burning zeal to defend and promote their faith!!!!:D:)

Perhaps they merely recognize that there is nothing to defend against. No simple observation of the universe could destroy your God, if He exists. Find me a piece of the theory of evolution that has not been based upon an observation.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

[
What are the odds you can win the lottery 52 weeks in a row? It is theoretically possible, since each event happens in a certain set of circumstances, but just as incredible as the biosphere having evolved. :D:D

The analogy is horribly flawed. It assumes one player for starters. Lotteries are deliberately designed to present the player with a negligible chance of winning even once. Please explain to me how this system is analogous to evolution.

J C

robindch wrote: »

JC herself is beyond credibility and her calculations have been shown to be junk many times over. It's not worth going through them again -- just look back through the thread and you should be able to find a few debunkings without much trouble.

.....'Fanny' Craddock is a MAN........and Robin keeps fantasising that I am a WOMAN......
......it seems that the Evolutionists on this thread are just as 'mixed up' about their own gender .....and the gender of other people on this thread.....as they are about the actual origins of life!!!!!!

.....I guess when you start to believe that Pondslime can evolve into Man.....then your imagination knows no bounds!!!!:D:)

......and your 'logic' becomes as 'contorted' as a pair of knickers in a brothel!!!!:D:)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....'Fanny' Craddock is a MAN........and Robin keeps fantasising that I am a WOMAN......
......it seems that the Evolutionists on this thread are just as 'mixed up' about their own gender .....and the gender of other people on this thread.....as they are about the actual origins of life!!!!!!

One evolutionist has a female name. Another assumes you are female. The rest have no opinion or interest. Irrelevant generalisation.

J C wrote: »

.....I guess when you start to believe that Pondslime can evolve into Man.....then your imagination knows no bounds!!!!:D:)

If your imagination were even sufficient to understand metaphor, perhaps you'd begin to understand how "pondslime" might slowly become something else.

J C wrote: »

......and your 'logic' becomes as 'contorted' as a pair of knickers in a brothel!!!!:D:)

The similes you use often feature sexual themes, have you noticed that?

Galvasean

I don't think he notices much TBH.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The similes you use often feature sexual themes, have you noticed that?

........and what is wrong with drawing sexual analogies????

......they make very impactful 'word pictures'!!!!

......are you a 'Puritanical Atheist' ......by any chance?????!!!!:D:):D:)

.....or have you forgotten that God invented sex......and asked us to be 'fruitful and multiply'.......within the faithful union of matrimony.....
.......and isn't it ironic that the only people with 'hang ups' about sex on this thread are the Evolutionists!!!!:D

Galvasean

Not sure about taht J C. Sex plays a pivitol role in evolution.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

........and what is wrong with drawing sexual analogies????

......they make very impactful 'word pictures'!!!!

......are you a 'Puritanical Atheist' ......by any chance?????!!!!:D:):D:)

.....or have you forgotten that God invented sex......and asked us to be 'fruitful and multiply'.......within the faithful union of matrimony.....
.......and isn't it ironic that the only people with 'hang ups' about sex on this thread are the Evolutionists!!!!:D

I pointed out that you seem to have no problem using such analogies. When did I suggest I had hang-ups? When did any of the other "evolutionists"? Why do you insist on generalising about atheists and evolutionists? Why are you yet again focussing on the least relevant comment from my previous post?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:
The certain set of circumstances arise by chance (a chance that JC has shown is beyond credibility) hence the evolution based on them is 'spontaneous'.

No (as has been explained countless times already)

The circumstances (a planet forming around a sun providing engery and the chemical components necessary for self replicating molecules to form, such as water) are relatively random but certainly not beyond credibility.

And even if they were evolution is not spontaneous, anymore than randomly picking a ball and dropping it means the ball falling is spontaneous.

Some times I really wonder about you Wolfsbane ...

wolfsbane wrote: »

What are the odds you can win the lottery 52 weeks in a row? It is theoretically possible, since each event happens in a certain set of circumstances, but just as incredible as the biosphere having evolved. :D:D

Wow, ok, lets try this yet again

If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 8 million, and 8 million people play each with a unique number, what are the odds that one out of those 8 million people will win the Lottery Wolfsbane? Thats right 1 in 1. It is a certainty.

How many planets are there in the universe Wolfsbane?

If the odds of a planet forming with the circumstances being right for simply self-replicating molecules to form are 1 in 100 billion then life has appeared at least 4 times in our galaxy alone, just one of billions of galaxies.

Life forming in the universe is not only highly likely, it would be safe to say it is a certainty.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creation = Darwinian Evolution is just as dishonest as Evolution = Biblical Creation. :pac::pac::pac:

Not according to most Christians, a large number who know a lot more about both Christianity and biology than you do.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Wow, ok, lets try this yet again

If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 8 million, and 8 million people play each with a unique number, what are the odds that one out of those 8 million people will win the Lottery Wolfsbane? Thats right 1 in 1. It is a certainty.

How many planets are there in the universe Wolfsbane?

If the odds of a planet forming with the circumstances being right for simply self-replicating molecules to form are 1 in 100 billion then life has appeared at least 4 times in our galaxy alone, just one of billions of galaxies.

Life forming in the universe is not only highly likely, it would be safe to say it is a certainty.

With our primitive technology we have already identified over 300 planets around close stars. That might indeed equate to billions in our galaxy.

Also the abiogenesis reactions would not occur just once on a given suitable planet but several billions of times in parallel (that being the nature of chemical reactions) over an extended time with only one or a very few reactions producing the protocell that would give rise to life as we define it. The established life would compete with the abiogenesis reactions for resources thus eventually coming to dominate.

Evolution itself is a massively parallel system also, with genome numbers probably on the order 1x10^20 undergoing the process simultaneously. With those sorts of numbers involved, chance becomes significant.

SwinterTarot

wow.. heavy thread.

my history as far as being a christian is concerned is shaky

born again in christ at 27 i spent 3 years reading up on creation both the biblical and 'modern' view.

to be honest i found then strikingly simular.

genisis follows all the modern views on worlds creation..

nothing-bright light-mass-planet-atmosphere-life etc..

and i think its not a huge stretch to look at these old testament writers and see that these subject are beyond their understanding.

3000+ years ago people where documenting creation as it happened more or less.. thats a big deal for me..

how you choose to label that process now, thats up to your belief.

but the chances, the chances of earth being a planet close enough to the sun for heat and energy, but not far enough for cold. That the moon orbits just the right time to bring the tides away from shore and not flood, that the day and night cycle is just right for plant life.. i mean these are just basic concepts but the chances..

no where in the bible does it say earth is gods only planet for life.

also 24 hours in a day.. the greek translated from several languages to then translate to latin and english. Now we know from the dead sea scrolls our old testament is 99.1% accurate and its really only the punctuation thats an issue ( like my post )

but the hebrew for some words 'means' different things to our king james..

the hebrew for '40' for exp. This in hebrew also means 'alot, a mass and an unknow amount'

noah was at sea for '40' days.. ( btw the arabic stems from the same word... alibaba and the '40' thieves. )

and in genisis a 'day' was a 'batch' or ' period' of time. . . our 'modern' translation some 3500+ years after they hebrew stopped oral tradition and started documenting has caused no end of issues..

as for me my time 'in christ' is over and although a solid believer in all the bible says my selfish nature means im unable to follow him as i should, not wanting to be a hippocrite i dont follow at all..

any way theres my 2 cents.;)