The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

ironingbored wrote: »

"a scourge, no less ?.....and how do these 'right thinking' secularists propose to go about eliminating this scourge???"

Just think of all the good that people could do if they put the same effort into understanding the world, into science, etc. as they do into reading fictional books from the Middle East and pretending to know what the "divine creator" expects from us: perpetual fawning and senseless sycophantism. That is one creature on a helluva ego trip. "I created the universe but I'm gonna kill a load of people because they don't believe in me!" If my seven-year old was that petty I clip him round the ear.

......you haven't answered my question about HOW these 'right thinking secularists'....are proposing to eliminate their so-called 'scourge'.... of religion!!!!

.....and I think it is quite ironic that somebody who believes themselves to be spontaneously generated by a process of non-intelligent i.e 'Moronic Design'....should think that their mental processes can be relied upon to intelligently conclude that they weren't Intelligently Designed!!!!:D

God DID Create the Universe and all life therein......and death came BECAUSE Man CHOSE to sin against God.....BUT the good news is that EVERYBODY can still be saved from eternal damnation IF they believe on Jesus Christ to save them.

Comparing your seven year old to God....is stretching it a bit .....even for an Evolutionist who believes himself to be 'Moronically Designed'.....from 'Pondslime' !!!!:pac::):D

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

I see the Georgia Guidestones have mysteriously appeared in the thread tags. :eek:

......THEY are WATCHING us ALL!!!

......but I will (hopefully) be raptured by the time they come for YOU!!!:)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Embedding a video is not the same as linking to yet another essay, or in some cases, a link to a list of 40 essays.

.....it is still a waste of time when over one third of your audience doesn't have access to broadband....and most of the rest have either restricted access that provents video downloads or have broadband speeds that make videos a 'pain in the neck'!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Who said mutation needed to produce the same function? Unless this is one of your "critical" genes then redundancy will preserve survival. Also the codon system is partially redundant, so some nucleotide substitution mutations will not actually result in a change in translated protein sequence.

....mutation needs to produce SOME function.....and it is observed to be overwhelmingly destructive of functionality....and IF you don't believe me.....why are you and your fellow Evolutionists so reticent about undergoing mutagenesis???:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Genetic algorithms once again. Simulated complex functional information from simple components. Also genetic comparisons showing existing and extinct intermediate forms.

....it has already been ponted out (numerous times) on this thead that Genetic algorythms are intelligently designed systems operating on intelligently designed computer hardware and software.....any more Intelligent Design in these systems.....and you would be dealing with God!!!!:D

wrote:

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
J C, still waiting on examples of people in the creationist leadership/PR arm also working in high profile science jobs. I promise I won't use my connections to the Atheist Conspiracy to get them sacked.

AtomicHorror
I really promise.

...you may 'really promise'......but the Georgia Guidestone guys....and their 'buddys' HAVEN'T promised!!!!!:pac::):D

J C

robindch wrote: »

JC, like many creationists and indeed religionists in general, suffers from the belief that she lives in a dualistic world in which mind and body are separate, largely unrelated entities.

.....and like many Materialists and other assorted people of religious belief in the non-existence of God......Robin thinks that men are women and spirit is matter .....and a seven year old child is equivalent to God!!!!!!

.....hardly surprising that they come to such ILLOGICAL conclusions....when they believe that their brains were 'Moronically Designed' from 'Pondslime'......in the first place!!!:pac::):D

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So, basically two of every land animal in existence? Is it therefore the creationist contention that all of the species of dinosaur were represented on the ark?

Depends on how inventive you want to get with the English (Hebrew?) language.

Some Creationists interpret the word "kind" as, well, a made up biological classification. So if I said take two of every "kind" of car in the word a Creationist would say that would be about 8 cars, as there are only 4 "kinds" of car. Rather than what most people would think, a pair of every car that has been made.

So (some) Creationists argue that there might have been as many species alive back then, or even more, but lots of species were of the same "kind".

That is the advantage of have absolute disrespect for truth and reason, you can pretty much make up anything you like if you are prepared to bend over backwards to do so.

As for the dinosaurs, Creationists point out that there were lots of small dinosaurs. So there. What about the lots of big dinosaurs? Hush!!! don't be asking questions, praise Jesus.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So what?

If you can't explain what this has to do with the scientific veracity of evolution then kindly drop this crap. Your tendency to dwell on the moral implications of evolution is bad enough without you dragging these very sad stories into the mix to suit your frankly halfwitted agenda.

Back on topic please.

....it may have little to do with the veracity of Evolution (which has been disproven by other means)......but the murderers involved, cited Natural Selection and Evolution as the main reason for their actions.....so these shootings are VERY relevant to any debate about Evolution!!!!

......and these shootings weren't 'crap' as you so ineloquently described them above.....they were an extreme manifestation of a belief that people are an accident of nature and only 'evolved pondslime'!!!!!

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

Written by Tas Walker. Oooh a degree in Earth Science and English. In other words a little bit of everything but nothing particularly specialized. Small wonder the article makes virtually no sense.

Perhaps Mr Tas Walker (seriously?) would like to explain how multiple examples of dinosaur tracks were found at Cerro del Pueblo.

What? While a massive torrent of flood water was sweeping through the area laying down line after line of sediment (how many floods were there), a group of dinosaurs decided to get up and go for a walk in the middle of all this, neatly laying down tracks in the mud (in the middle of a Biblical flood)?

Nonsense, utter utter nonsense.

Seriously why does Wolfsbane even bother posting from these utter ridiculously websites?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....God COULD have 'created' life by 'evolving' it.....but He said that He Created it DIRECTLY....and at roughly the same time

sdep
I shall take a leaf from Wolfsbane and say:

The evolutionary theological position you reject is supported by many clergymen and women whose integrity I have no reason to doubt. The Archbishop of Canterbury supports it, and he's clearly a decent man:

Quote:
The Sunday Times, 3rd Aug 2008
"Oh, Rowan Williams – what a sweet man," says Dawkins, a smile breaking over his face. [...] "I’ve met him socially, and he is delightful."

I have no interest in becoming a clergyman - that's not my calling. Where religion is alleged to contradict science, I respond. I point out that such claims are disputed by other theologians, who advance doctrine in support of their case. When experts differ, and I am not qualified to test them, I accept there is a debate going on.

......you could say that!!!!

I think that Prof Dawkins glowing praise for Archbishop Williams.....says more than I could possible say about Archbishop Williams !!!!:D

J C

sdep wrote: »

And this answers none of the questions.

The people contributing to the development of their language operate quite differently to your conception of an intelligent designer. Are you suggesting that each animal that ever lived had its own small intelligent designer who received the blueprint from another, made a few changes - perhaps in collaboration with a few colleagues - then handed it on? That's closer to what happened with languages.

Also, the lack of 'intermediates' between pairs of languages, and the large differences in vocab and grammar between them don't rule out evolution from a common root, as deduced by linguists. Why should the large differences and lack of existing intermediates between certain genes and species rule out common descent?

....the COMPLETELY DIFFERENT syntax of different language groups DOES rule out any single common root language common to all language groups!!!

.....languages HAVE evolved within Language groups by the appliance of INTELLIGENCE ....to devise new words, for example.......and to acquire words from other Languages!!!!

....there is little analogy between lingusitics and genetics as they obviously proceed by entirely different mechanisms.....so the so-called 'evolution' of languages (which is objectively intelligently driven) bears no resemblance to the so-called 'evolution' of life (within Kinds).....which uses inherent pre-existing information to drive the process.:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....it is still a waste of time when over one third of your audience doesn't have access to broadband....and most of the rest have either restricted access that provents video downloads or have broadband speeds that make videos a 'pain in the neck'!!!!:D

Most people are on broadband J C.

J C wrote: »

....mutation needs to produce SOME function.....

Yes, some. At a low rate. The majority can be deleterious. That's part of the theory.

J C wrote: »

and it is observed to be overwhelmingly destructive of functionality....

So what? The functional survives. The non-function is less likely to.

J C wrote: »

and IF you don't believe me.....why are you and your fellow Evolutionists so reticent about undergoing mutagenesis???:D

I've explained this twice already.

1. Because it is deleterious in most cases
2. Because only mutations in the germ line (our sex cells) are relevant to evolution. Undergoing any other mutagenesis has no likely benefit

J C wrote: »

....it has already been ponted out (numerous times) on this thead that Genetic algorythms are intelligently designed systems operating on intelligently designed computer hardware and software.....any more Intelligent Design in these systems.....and you would be dealing with God!!!!:D

It's been pointed out and is still wrong. The input into the system, analogous to the material of life, has no intelligent component. Those parts of the system which are intelligently designed are the simulation of the environment. So, unless there is an element of that which itself simulates intelligence within the system, then your argument doesn't hold any water.

If it did then we could not simulate any system without concluding that intelligence is required.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....it may have little to do with the veracity of Evolution (which has been disproven by other means)......

You've failed at every turn J C. I realise that coming to terms with that would be impossible for you, but there it is.

J C wrote: »

but the murderers involved, cited Natural Selection and Evolution as the main reason for their actions.....so it talking about these shootings is VERY relevant to any debate about Evolution!!!!

How many murderers have cited God and Jesus?

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror: If you can't explain what this has to do with the scientific veracity of evolution then kindly drop this crap.

......and these shootings weren't 'crap' as you so ineloquently described them above.....

"This crap" refers to your transparent tactic of diverting the debate down moral lines whenever you panic and flee from the science. Please tell me you didn't misunderstand that.

J C wrote: »

they were an extreme manifestation of a belief that people are an accident of nature and only 'evolved pondslime'!!!!!

You have difficulty following basic English and the theory of evolution confuses you. What exactly is your assessment of the motives of killers actually worth? Nothing at all.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

And a computer can also store weather information. It can also use this information to run detailed weather forecast models.

So naturally this proves beyond all reasonable doubt that weather is intelligent designed.

.....you are confusing intelligently designed computer MODELLING of external environmental phenomena, like weather... which isn't itself intelligently designed.

...similarly intelligently designed living organisms, for example, shiver/sweat to cope with external environmental phenomena, like weather... which isn't itself intelligently designed!!!!!

....you really do need to do a course in Intelligent Design!!!!!:pac::):D

....rather than embarassing yourself by writing about something you appear to know NOTHING about!!!:D

wrote:

Originally posted by J C
ALL of the school shooters in BOTH Columbine and Finland were extreme nihilists who followed through on their invalid ideas with dreadful consequences for both their victims ……and themselves

Wicknight
How Christian of them ...

....the Shooters WEREN'T Christians....but they targetted Christian students in Columbine!!!!

.....the Shooters were extreme Social Dawinists, in all cases........who followed through on their invalid ideas with dreadful consequences for both their victims ……and themselves.

AtomicHorror wrote:

"This crap" refers to your transparent tactic of diverting the debate down moral lines whenever you panic and flee from the science. Please tell me you didn't misunderstand that.

......it wasn't clear what particular 'crap' you were writing about!!!!!:D

.........and I'm not panicking over ANYTHING....I deal with the Scientific questions that you have raised about Evolution....as well as the moral questions...that you haven't raise!!!!:D

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

why does Wolfsbane even bother posting from these utter ridiculously websites?

Saves him the trouble of typing it out himself?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....you are confusing intelligently designed computer MODELLING of external environmental phenomena, like weather... which isn't itself intelligently designed.

What is the difference between simulating the weather and simulating evolution? There is the computer, intelligently designed. There is the software, intelligently designed. This is common to both. So by your logic, weather is intelligently designed, unless you can point to a difference in the two set-ups.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Saves him the trouble of typing it out himself?

Or reading it critically.

robindch

J C wrote: »

....the ENTIRE syntax of different language groups DOES rule our any single common root language common to all language groups!!!

Seriously, JC, stick to biology. Being hopelessly wrong everywhere else too doesn't do much for your claim to be intelligently designed

AtomicHorror

Still waiting...

AtomicHorror wrote:

J C:Evidence for such an Act of Creation would include the instantaneous emergence of all basic life-forms with full PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity. Such genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards.
Oh good, some predictions. So, in biological terms, in genetics, what does "genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards" mean? How would you measure this?

AtomicHorror wrote:

J C, still waiting on examples of people in the creationist leadership/PR arm also working in high profile science jobs. I promise I won't use my connections to the Atheist Conspiracy to get them sacked.

AtomicHorror wrote:

J C:.....you are BOTH dogmatic and changing!!!
.....you cling onto anything that props up your Atheistic Dogma!!!!

...and if something new comes along that you can use to support your dogma....you run with it....and if it doesn't you will reject or ignore it!!!

Were that the case then we would have expected the scientific community to be atheistic first and then to find the evidence for it, disregarding that which did not fit the model. Rather as the creationist community has started from the assumption that scripture is infallible and has disregarded or "re-interpreted" whatever does not fit their framework.

However, quite to the contrary, science was primarily the preserve of the religious for many centuries before a series of scientific findings, and the refinement of scientific philosophy, resulted in most scientists coming to the conclusion that to assume any given religion to be correct is irrational. Quite a gradual process.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....you are confusing intelligently designed computer MODELLING of external environmental phenomena, like weather... which isn't itself intelligently designed.

No, I'm not confusing anything JC.:rolleyes:

You were confusing the difference between an intelligently designed model, such as a computer model, and the non-intelligent process that it models, such as the weather, or Darwinian evolution. Considering you appear to know nothing about either of those subjects, this in itself isn't that surprising.

Any time a computer model of evolution has been presented here that demonstrates that Darwinian evolution, as a non-intelligent process, can produce output that would be statistically impossible through random variation alone, you have dismissed it because the computer model itself, ie the computer program, was written by intelligent humans. Which is like saying the weather must be intelligent because we use computer models to simulate it. :rolleyes:

As you seem to have finally realized when confronted with other examples of intelligently designed modeling software such as weather modeling, that is just stupid. The fact that the model is designed by intelligence in no way implies that the process it is modeling has to also be a product of intelligence.

All the claims you have made about Darwinian evolution being unable to produce new functional information are demonstrated wrong by computer models. Your nonsense excuse that the fact that the computer models were designed by humans some how invalids the results and points to intelligent design does not hold, as I hope you finally realize.

Your ignorant claims in this matter can be excused only a limited number of times because it simply looks like you are deliberately misrepresenting information in an effort to deceive those reading your posts.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....the Shooters WEREN'T Christians....but they targetted Christians in Columbine!!!!

I didn't say they were, I said there actions were very Christian like .... do you disagree?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What is the difference between simulating the weather and simulating evolution? There is the computer, intelligently designed. There is the software, intelligently designed. This is common to both. So by your logic, weather is intelligently designed, unless you can point to a difference in the two set-ups.

....the difference between simulating weather and simulating evolution....is that weather happens....and Evolution DOESN'T....its the difference between simulating weather and a perpetual motion machine!!!:pac::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Still waiting...

.....for WHAT??:pac::):D

....Jesus is still waiting for YOU!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

....... praise Jesus.

....the only good thing you have written in a long while!!!:pac::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....the Shooters WEREN'T Christians....but they targetted Christians in Columbine!!

Wicknight
I didn't say they were, I said there actions were very Christian like .... do you disagree?

.....so tell me....do you know of ANY instance where Chrstian students have shot up their school and deliberately targetted Atheist students there??

Wicknight wrote: »

Wicknight - Mixing business with girls and thrills since 1979

.....what age are these girls???
.....I must say that before I was 'born again'....I preferred to mix business with women myself!!!

sdep

J C wrote: »

......THEY are WATCHING us ALL!!!

......but I will (hopefully) be raptured by the time they come for YOU!!!:)

Jim Corr?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....so tell me....do you know of ANY instance where Chrstian students have shot up their school and deliberately targetted Atheist students there??

Not really (I know "communists" have been targeted by shootings), but I'm not sure what your point is. Why would they have to be atheists? Christians seem perfectly happy to kill other Christians.

J C wrote: »

.....I must say that before I was 'born again'....I preferred to mix business with women myself!!!

You must be so happy now :rolleyes:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....the difference between simulating weather and simulating evolution....is that weather happens....and Evolution DOESN'T....

I asked you what the difference in the set up was. They both have an intelligently designed hardware and designed software. But the subject simulated in naturalistic in one case and not so in the other. So what is the difference between these?

J C wrote: »

its the difference between simulating weather and a perpetual motion machine!!!:pac::):D

Simulating a perpetual motion machine demonstrates that they can only work if we remove some of the laws of physics from the system. That's how we know them to be impossible. No such laws are removed from evolution simulations. When they are, the system no longer matches up to our real-world observations.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror:
Still waiting...

(three scientific questions)

.....for WHAT??

....Jesus is still waiting for YOU!!

The list of questions you are unable to answer just keeps getting longer.

J C wrote: »

.....so tell me....do you know of ANY instance where Chrstian students have shot up their school and deliberately targetted Atheist students there??

Explain the relevance of this to evolution please.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Complete rubbish.

Languages evolve constantly, with, say, Latin evolving into Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Moldovan and others. Linguistic creationism is an idea which is as obviously and splendidly false as biological creationism. You can find out more on linguistic cross-pollination in this article on creoles.

And, Finnish's cloest relative being in the Middle East -- LOL! :pac::D

The closest language to Finnish is Estonian, just an hour or so by boat from Helsinki.

.... Estonian AND Finnish belongs to the Finno-Ugric Language Group....just like Welsh, Scottish Gallic and Breton all belong to the Celtic Language Group......

Languages are grouped into several large language groups- Germanic, Romance, Altaic, Slavic, Indic etc.
Estonian belongs to the Finno-Ugric group of languages, that has its roots somewhere behind the Ural mountains.....i.e. The Middle East.
Today, there are several dozen small Finno-Ugric nations settled in North Europe, in the Volga and Ural region, and in Siberia and the Russian Far North.....indicating the DISPERSAL...and NOT the 'evolution' of this language!!!

People often think that Finnish and Estonian must be similar to Russian.....or at least to the languages of Estonia's two Baltic neighbouring countries, Latvian and Lithuanian. This is not so.
Contrary to most of the languages spoken in Europe, the Finno-Ugric languages are not part of the Indo-European family of languages. Thus, Estonian and Finnish are not related to the Slavic languages such as Russian, Ukrainian, Czech, or Polish, nor to the Germanic languages such as German, Dutch, or Swedish, nor to the Baltic languages, Latvian and Lithuanian nor the Romanesque languages such as French, Italian, or Romanian.

....so WHERE and HOW did all these VERY DIFFERENT languages arise to co-exist BESIDE each other???

....more evidence supporting the Biblical 'Dispersal' account.....and defying an Evolutionist interpretation!!!!

.....as I have said, languages as spoken by intelligent people, WILL 'evolve' with use......but distinct diverse languages like the Romanesque Languages, the Scandanavian Languages, Finnish, the Celtic Languages, the Slavic languages and Basque ALL had DIFFERENT 'roots'.....in Babel!!!!
:pac::):D

J C

sdep wrote: »

Jim Corr?

......no.....I don't sing!!!!!:D

....anyway, what do you think of the Georgia Guidestones....and their erectors???!!

....and be very careful of what you say....they are watching you.....isn't that right lads???

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....so tell me....do you know of ANY instance where Chrstian students have shot up their school and deliberately targetted Atheist students there??

Wicknight
Not really (I know "communists" have been targeted by shootings).....

.....so there are NO instances of Christian students shooting up schools then!!

wrote:

Wicknight
.....but I'm not sure what your point is. Why would they have to be atheists? Christians seem perfectly happy to kill other Christians.

.....as I have said, there are NO instances of Christian students shooting up schools .....BUT there ARE these very troubling instances of MASS MURDER by non-Christian students who claim that their killings are motivated by 'Evolution'!!!!
.....and, at least in one instance, they deliberately targetted Christian students.
This certainly deserves discussion in any debate about Creationism, Evolution and Biblical Christianity.

wrote:

Originally Posted by Wicknight
Wicknight - Mixing business with girls and thrills since 1979


Originally Posted by
.....what age are these girls???
.....I must say that before I was 'born again'....I preferred to mix business with women myself!!!

Wicknight
You must be so happy now :rolleyes:

....yes, I am faithfully married to a beautiful sexy Christian woman.....and we are VERY HAPPY!!

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Most people are on broadband J C.

...as I have said, .....it is a waste of time posting video clips on the thread, when over one third of your audience doesn't have access to broadband....and most of the rest have either restricted access that provents video downloads or have broadband speeds that make videos a 'pain in the neck'!!!!

.....but don't let me stop you going up yet ANOTHER Evolutionist 'cul de sac'!!!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I've explained this twice already.

1. Because it is deleterious in most cases
2. Because only mutations in the germ line (our sex cells) are relevant to evolution. Undergoing any other mutagenesis has no likely benefit

....so are you saying that having your gonads irridated will produce 'improved' children????

....could I tell you, as gently as I possibly can, that testicular cancer and/or sterility will be the likely result!!!!!:eek: