The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Galvasean

santing wrote: »

No, just tired of quoting the same evidence all over:
Fossil record - see http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3001
Genetic analysis - are always prove of "recent" age http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5688/

As we grow tired of being sent to the same old Creationist propaganda sites which construct arguments based on ignoring data and misinterpreting real science.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

[/B]........so you do seriously believe that a penis could become a deadly STINGER??????!!!:D

I don't know of any specific example of male genitalia becoming a stinger, perhaps it exists. The example I cited for wasps was the ovipositor, a female reproductive organ. Had you actually read my post, you'd know that.

J C wrote: »

......I guess that must add a whole new dimension to the achievement of 'safe sex'.......for an Evolutionist!!!!:D

What the hell are you talking about? The evolution of the wasp ovipositor into a wasp stinger constitutes the "micro evolution within kinds" (ie wasp kind) that you claim does actually happen.

sdep

I only spotted this when quoted in AH's post. For some reason JC's posts don't appear on my screen.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

J C wrote:

.....the 64 Horse chromosomes were probably produced by the tetraploidy of the 32 Zebra chromosomes

And an appropriate response:

santing wrote: »

- No

To elaborate, tetraploidy in mammals is extremely rare. A 2003 paper reported instead that 'numerous Robertsonian translocations and tandem fusions and several inversions account for the karyotypic differences between the horses and zebras.'

AtomicHorror

sdep wrote: »

I only spotted this when quoted in AH's post. For some reason JC's posts don't appear on my screen.

Did you block him? Several others have

sdep

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Did you block him? Several others have

I shall leave you to draw your own conclusions.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

.....yes eternal death would indeed be preferable to an eternity in Hell......but unfortunately we DON'T get to choose between eternal death and and life......we only get to choose WHERE we spend eternity......and I would urge everyone to choose Heaven .......by being saved!!!!!

That's the second time you've responded to my sig. To that specific quote, in fact.

J C wrote: »

......the 'pennies are starting to drop'......and the 'pips are starting to squeak'!!!!!:pac::):D

What?

J C wrote: »

[/B]

........so you do seriously believe that a penis could become a deadly STINGER??????!!!:D

Yes, over about 10,000 years. What is it about creationists not being able to read whole sentences?

AtomicHorror

One less uniquely primate trait:

Mirror-Induced Behavior in the Magpie (Pica pica): Evidence of Self-Recognition

Primary paper: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060202

Mainstream coverage: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14552-mirror-test-shows-magpies-arent-so-birdbrained.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news4_head_dn14552

To summarise it:

Researchers placed a coloured sticker (or a control black sticker) just below each magpie's beak. The bird would therefore not be able to see the sticker. The black sticker would control for any sensation the bird might have of the stickers presence on their feathers without having the outwardly visible element. The birds where then introduced singly into a mirrored cage. Birds with a bright sticker spotted it in the mirror and, rather than investigating their reflection as if it were another bird, proceeded to attempt to remove the sticker from themselves with their beaks or feet. Birds with a black sticker paid some attention to the mirror but showed no signs of noticing the sticker.

The implication is that Magpies posses rudimentary self-recognition. This may indicate that they possess basic theory of mind, a feature only seen in primates, dolphins and elephants. The New Scientist link features a nice video of the experiment.

J C

sdep wrote: »

To elaborate, tetraploidy in mammals is extremely rare. A 2003 paper reported instead that 'numerous Robertsonian translocations and tandem fusions and several inversions account for the karyotypic differences between the horses and zebras.'

....I agree that tetraploidy is extremely rare........but it is the most likely explanation for the speciation of the Horse. Robertsonian translocations, tandem fusions and inversions may have been involved in the speciation of the Donkey allright.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by sdep
I only spotted this when quoted in AH's post. For some reason JC's posts don't appear on my screen

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
Did you block him? Several others have

sdep
I shall leave you to draw your own conclusions.

......so we can conclude that:-

sdep is in such denial that he blocked my posts to avoid the Biblical truth and overwhelming scientific evidence contained therein.......

......he then forgets that he blocked my posts.....and complains that he can't see them.......

.....and when he is reminded that he must have blocked my posts......he then asks us to guess whether he has blocked my posts!!!!

......as I have said 'the pips are squeaking'.......and the Atheists are in meltdown because they have been faced with the truth in the plain Word of God and the overwhelming evidence for Direct Creation!!!:D

.......to this there are only two responses..........to accept it and be saved.......or to reject it and spend eternity in screaming denial!!!!:D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

One less uniquely primate trait:

Mirror-Induced Behavior in the Magpie (Pica pica): Evidence of Self-Recognition

Primary paper: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060202

Mainstream coverage: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14552-mirror-test-shows-magpies-arent-so-birdbrained.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news4_head_dn14552

To summarise it:

Researchers placed a coloured sticker (or a control black sticker) just below each magpie's beak. The bird would therefore not be able to see the sticker. The black sticker would control for any sensation the bird might have of the stickers presence on their feathers without having the outwardly visible element. The birds where then introduced singly into a mirrored cage. Birds with a bright sticker spotted it in the mirror and, rather than investigating their reflection as if it were another bird, proceeded to attempt to remove the sticker from themselves with their beaks or feet. Birds with a black sticker paid some attention to the mirror but showed no signs of noticing the sticker.

The implication is that Magpies posses rudimentary self-recognition. This may indicate that they possess basic theory of mind, a feature only seen in primates, dolphins and elephants. The New Scientist link features a nice video of the experiment.

........birds and mammals were ALL created by God......so it is no surprise that they are intelligent and self-aware.

However, only man was created in the image and likeness of God and possessing an eternal soul with the ability to decide their eternal destiny......by being saved.....or not.....as the case may be!!!:)

....some Parrots are thought to have IQs that are similar to young children.....

.......and some Crows are thought to have IQs approaching the levels required to accept Spontaneous Evolution!!!!:eek::D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by The Mad Hatter
"Is not eternal death a happier prospect than eternal life?

Originally Posted by J C
.....yes eternal death would indeed be preferable to an eternity in Hell......but unfortunately we DON'T get to choose between eternal death and life......we only get to choose WHERE we spend eternity......and I would urge everyone to choose Heaven .......by being saved!!!!!

The Mad Hatter
That's the second time you've responded to my sig. To that specific quote, in fact.

The false dichotomy of a supposed choice between eternal life and death is so spiritually dangerous that it deserves to be challenged wherever and whenever it appears!!!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
........so you do seriously believe that a penis could become a deadly STINGER??????!!!


The Mad Hatter
Yes, over about 10,000 years. What is it about creationists not being able to read whole sentences?

........so if a penis can 'morph' into a DEADLY stinger in about 10,000 years.......it could start producing some very NASTY BLISTERS on some misfortunate Evolutionist woman's 'nether regions' in less that 100 years ???!!!

......as I have said, it is yet another 'safe sex' worry for the Evolutionist to fret about........
......while the Creationist woman enjoys multiple whole body orgasims every night from her Creationist husband......as God intended it !!!!!:pac::):D
......without the slightest risk of a deadly stinger......or a nasty rash!!!!:)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......so we can conclude that:-

sdep is in such denial that he blocked my posts to avoid the Biblical truth and overwhelming scientific evidence contained therein.......

......he then forgets that he blocked my posts.....and complains that he can't see them.......

.....and when he is reminded that he must have blocked my posts......he then asks us to guess whether he has blocked my posts!!!!

......as I have said 'the pips are squeaking'.......and the Atheists are in meltdown because they have been faced with the truth in the plain Word of God and the overwhelming evidence for Direct Creation!!!:D

.......to this there are only two responses..........to accept it and be saved.......or to reject it and spend eternity in screaming denial in Hell!!!!:D

I'd say he just needed a break from your relentless, circular arguments and chaotic writing style. Far simpler, far more likely.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

[/B]........so if a penis can 'morph' into a DEADLY stinger in about 10,000 years.......

As already stated twice it "micro" evolved within wasp "kind" (in line with creationism) from a female sexual organ. You are mocking your own version of evolution here J C.

J C wrote: »

...it could start producing some very NASTY BLISTERS on some misfortunate Evolutionist woman's 'nether regions' in less that 100 years ???!!!

Mathematically and logically, I have absolutely no idea where you got this from. Did you get sunstroke while you were away or something?

J C wrote: »

......as I have said, it is yet another 'safe sex' worry for the Evolutionist to fret about........
......while the Creationist woman enjoys multiple whole body orgasims every night from her Creationist husband......as God intended it !!!!!:pac::):D
......without the slightest risk of a deadly stinger......or a nasty rash!!!!:)

Knickers, brothels, multiple orgasms. You will talk graphically and at length about sex at the drop of a hat, won't you? Is this really an appropriate discussion topic for an open forum, let alone a Christian one?

J C wrote: »

.......and some Crows are thought to have IQs approaching the levels required to accept Spontaneous Evolution!!!!:eek::D

I'd say even a crow would have the reason required to discard J C's theory of Straw man... I mean, Spontaneous Evolution.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.......and some Crows are thought to have IQs approaching the levels required to accept Spontaneous Evolution!!!!:eek::D

Perhaps with a bit more education they would accept the actual theory of Darwinian evolution.

Joseph Kuhr

I have a question for creationists and christians. What do you believe happened before you lived? I believe being unborn is the same as being dead. I mean before you become a conscious foetus.

Flamed Diving

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

I have a question for creationists and christians. What do you believe happened before you lived? I believe being unborn is the same as being dead. I mean before you become a conscious foetus.

The entire universe continued as always, much the same way as it does now, and as it will after I'm gone.

Joseph Kuhr

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The entire universe continued as always, much the same way as it does now, and as it will after I'm gone.

Yes but where did you come from? Do people who believe in heaven believe we came down from there before we were born?

PDN

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

I have a question for creationists and christians. What do you believe happened before you lived? I believe being unborn is the same as being dead. I mean before you become a conscious foetus.

No, Christians do not believe that we have any pre-existence prior to conception.

There is no definitive position among Christians as to when our human existence begins. The Roman Catholic Church defines it as at conception, but this is by church tradition rather than by the Bible. Many Christians believe our existence as a human, and the existence of our soul and spirit, occurs at some later stage of development in the womb.

Flamed Diving

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

Yes but where did you come from?

A combination of my fathers sperm and my mothers egg.

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

Do people who believe in heaven believe we came down from there before we were born?

I don't believe in heaven, so I cant help you with that. Perhaps you would be better off starting a new thread? This place is more of a scientism vs creationism battleground.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

No, Christians do not believe that we have any pre-existence prior to conception.

Is that so? I understood that there are a moderate number of christian denominations which assert, or at least, don't deny, that the soul exists before conception, since the NT doesn't make it clear one way or the other, and the OT doesn't mention the topic at all.

Joseph Kuhr

PDN wrote: »

No, Christians do not believe that we have any pre-existence prior to conception.

There is no definitive position among Christians as to when our human existence begins. The Roman Catholic Church defines it as at conception, but this is by church tradition rather than by the Bible. Many Christians believe our existence as a human, and the existence of our soul and spirit, occurs at some later stage of development in the womb.

didn't the church redefine hell from being a burning pit to being a state of non existence? In that case we were all in hell before we were conceived.

It would also suggest that you do in fact believe in evolution. If there is no divine intervention involved in our conception.

robindch

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

It would also suggest that you do in fact believe in evolution.

Just a small point, but one doesn't "believe in evolution", any more than one "believes in" gravity or electricity. The idea that evolution is something that one can "believe in" belongs to the creationists who've a strong interest in talking up a fight where none should exist.

Perhaps it's better to say that one accepts evolution, or some variation of it.

AtomicHorror

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

didn't the church redefine hell from being a burning pit to being a state of non existence? In that case we were all in hell before we were conceived.

Really off topic now. I think a new thread for that question is in order.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

[/B]
The false dichotomy of a supposed choice between eternal life and death is so spiritually dangerous that it deserves to be challenged wherever and whenever it appears!!!!!

Firstly, if you pay attention, I didn't write that - George Monbiot did.

Anyhow, as one good turn deserves another, the phrase "I believe on Jesus Christ" in your sig - I assume that that should be literally meant when spoken? If so, how are we supposed to stand on someone who's been dead for nearly two millenia,* and what if anything are we supposed to believe in while we say it?


*I can't see any other literal way of interpreting this than saying "I believe on Jesus Christ" while standing on Jesus Christ.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Is that so? I understood that there are a moderate number of christian denominations which assert, or at least, don't deny, that the soul exists before conception, since the NT doesn't make it clear one way or the other, and the OT doesn't mention the topic at all.

As far as I know the only denomination of any size that teaches the pre-existence of the soul is Mormonism which, without wishing to open another can of worms, hardly qualifies as part of mainstream Christianity.

Origen did speculate about it, but he was such an 'outside the box' thinker that he speculated about almost everything that is weird and wonderful.

PDN

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

didn't the church redefine hell from being a burning pit to being a state of non existence? In that case we were all in hell before we were conceived.

It would also suggest that you do in fact believe in evolution. If there is no divine intervention involved in our conception.

No, the church (I presume you mean Catholicism?) did not make such a redefinition.

The Catholic Church does indeed accept evolution.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Knickers, brothels, multiple orgasms. You will talk graphically and at length about sex at the drop of a hat, won't you? Is this really an appropriate discussion topic for an open forum, let alone a Christian one?

.......what is wrong with discussing sex.......it is all part of God's created plan......and brothels are due to Mankind's sinful and fallen nature.....
......read the Bible........sexual intimacy is discussed at length in it......and sexual sins are discussued in graphical detail.....
.......isn't it ironic that it is an Atheist who is the one that is PURITANICAL about sex on this forum!!!!!!!:pac::):D

......indeed as George Orwell's book '1984' shows........sexual puritanism can be found in atheistic contexts.....although the book is fiction, George Orwell was describing what he believed to be the ultimate outworking of the totalitarian states with which he was familiar in the late 1940's.......including their fondness for suppressing sexual intimacy......and especially public displays thereof!!!!

In the book 1984 it was a criminal offence to engage in unlicenced hetro-sexual activity......and it was also a criminal offence to take pleasure in hetro-sexual intimacy for reproductive purposes.

God however designed man and woman to marry for life and take pleasure in sexual intimacy with each other.
The purpose of sexual intimacy for a Christian is to support the married union between them and their spouse through sexual pleasure and a deep psychological and physical intimacy.
There is also an obligation on Christian couples to have children (if this is physically possible for them) thereby co-operating with God's request 'to be fruitful and multiply'. The number of children which a Christian Couple decide to have, however, is entirely at their own discretion.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.......what is wrong with discussing sex.......it is all part of God's created plan......and brothels are due to Mankind's sinful and fallen nature.....
......read the Bible........sexual intimacy is discussed at length in it......and sexual sins are discussued in graphical detail.....
.......isn't it ironic that it is an Atheist who is the one that is PURITANICAL about sex on this forum!!!!!!!:pac::):D

If you would like to talk about sex with respect to reproduction in evolution, then fire away. I will happily discuss this with you. However, I don't see why it is necessary for you to use sexual imagery as a means of mocking a point I have made or poking fun at your opponents in general. Perhaps this is yet another method you use to derail us from the issues at hand. Whatever it is, I don't think it has a place here.

J C wrote: »

......indeed as George Orwell's book '1984' shows........sexual puritanism can be found in atheistic contexts.....although the book is fiction, George Orwell was describing what he believed to be the ultimate outworking of the totalitarian states with which he was familiar in the late 1940's.......including their fondness for suppressing sexual intimacy......and especially public displays thereof!!!!

In the book 1984 it was a criminal offence to engage in unlicenced hetro-sexual activity......and it was also a criminal offence to take pleasure in hetro-sexual intimacy for reproductive purposes.

God however designed man and woman to marry for life and take pleasure in sexual intimacy with each other.
The purpose of sexual intimacy for a Christian is to support the married union between them and their spouse through sexual pleasure and a deep psychological and physical intimacy.
There is also an obligation on Christian couples to have children (if this is physically possible for them) therby co-operating with God's request 'to be fruitful and multiply'. The number of children which a Christian Couple decide to have, however, is entirely at their own discretion.

What is the relevance of any of this to the debate about evolution? I have read Nineteen Eighty-Four several times, I understand it just fine and in fact it is perhaps my favourite book. I think it has a lot to say about the power of religious thinking, personality cults and self-deception. However I also think it has no baring on our debate.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.......and some Crows are thought to have IQs approaching the levels required to accept Spontaneous Evolution!!!!

Gaviscon
Perhaps with a bit more education they would accept the actual theory of Darwinian evolution.

.....so are you saying that Spontaneous Evolution and Darwininan Evolution are both 'bird-brained' ideas????!!!!!:):D:eek: