The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:
No indeed. I'm a creationist but not a scientist. Those who believe evolution to be true but are not themselves scientists are still evolutionists. But the point was: it was claimed no scientists are creationists, and my list proves that to be a silly delusion.

You really need a course in logic. Any waiter who is also a scientist, is a scientist (and a waiter). This does not mean all waiters are scientists - but it also does not mean that no waiters are scientists.

I don't think I need a course in logic. I believe the assertion I made was "creationists are not scientists", correct me if I'm wrong on that. I could also assert "waiters are not scientists", or "ballerinas are not scientists". Sure, it's possible to be both creationist and scientist, but not work in both capacities at the same time.

wolfsbane wrote: »

This list was of scientists engaged in the usual fields. I posted a list before of scientists engaged in creation research - I did not use it this time because the juvenile objection is made that any scientist who devotes him/herself to creation research has stopped being a scientist.

A scientist is one who follows the scientific method. Creation researchers don't. That's not juvenile, it's a very simple definition.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I try to accommodate the weak.

Not sure what you mean by that.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's one from The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy by D. Russell Humphreys:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm

Conclusion: the Earth’s Magnetic Field is Young

That's not a hypothesis, it's an article. A hypothesis goes something like this:

The living species of Earth are descended from a common ancestor.

A simple statement that we can make true or false by testing. The hypothesis has testable implications based on what we know about the various players in the hypothesis.

So, your article link doesn't do the job. If the Earth's magnetic field is losing energy faster than it ought to be then that could mean many things. It is certainly not something that would be suppressed by the Atheist Materialist Conspiracy because it does not automatically suggest a young Earth. Which makes it all the more curious that no scientist has reported this, at least that I know of. Find me a primary paper which demonstrates this effect and I'll certainly read it.

AtomicHorror

So just thought I'd give you guys a heads-up. I'll be around on this debate a lot less. Probably just weekends and maybe not even that for a while. Trying to finish up my doctorate and my habit of debating on the internet is taking up huge chunks of time time. It's been fun and informative. Just remember the two golden rules:

1) Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution

2) Evolution is not a moral philosophy

In other words, stay focused

Hopefully in a few months I'll be back and kicking ass for the Atheist Materialist Conspiracy. Until then.... have fun guys!!!!! :D:pac:

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So just thought I'd give you guys a heads-up. I'll be around on this debate a lot less. Probably just weekends and maybe not even that for a while. Trying to finish up my doctorate and my habit of debating on the internet is taking up huge chunks of time time. It's been fun and informative. Just remember the two golden rules:

1) Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution

2) Evolution is not a moral philosophy

In other words, stay focused

Hopefully in a few months I'll be back and kicking ass for the Atheist Materialist Conspiracy. Until then.... have fun guys!!!!! :D:pac:

......and Evolution NEVER happened.....because "nothing comes from nothing in Evolution"!!!!:D

......BEEP!!!!........BEEP!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

........................................BEEP!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

There is NO indication in the Bible that EVERY Created Kind had to be taken on board the Ark.....it was only a limited number of 'Sorts' (and with a bias towards representative pairs (and sevens in some cases)of useful/food producing Kinds....that were saved on the Ark from the Flood.

From this limited number of 'Sorts' of animals.....all modern species have speciated!!!!

Care to define 'sorts' or shall it remain nice and ambiguous like 'kinds'?

J C wrote: »

......the taxonomic classification of Dinosaurs needs to be completely overhauled!!!!

The current classification system seems to be doing just fine. It's not perfect (as has been discussed before), but certainly makes a lot more sense than the clasifications you are throwing wildly about.

J C wrote: »

.....as I have already said, there would have to be MANY biological structures made from NOTHING that pre-existed ....IF Pondslime ever DID 'evolve' into Man!!!

So DNA counts as nothing now? How refreshing.

J C wrote: »

....it's actually BETTER explained by 'convergent Creation'!!!!:D

Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the word 'convergent' before you associate it with Creation.

J C wrote: »

......a child would identify the similarities.....

I'm sure the hypothetical child would, but similarly they could see enough differences to tell that they were very different animals.

J C wrote: »

it takes an exceptionally well qualified and brainwashed Evolutionist.....to NOT spot the fact that some Dinosaurs were MAMMALS!!!!!

No, just someone with a basic knowledge of what a dinosaur is.

J C wrote: »

....let me see...... Birds are light boned, two-footed and feathered.....Mammals are heavy boned, four-footed and NOT feathered....guess what, MOST Dinosaurs were heavy boned, four-footed .....and NOT feathered!!!!:eek::).

If you actually look you will see many dinosaurs with light bone structure, two feet, feathers as well as many other features associated with birds.

J C wrote: »

as well as the FUNDAMENTAL differences with birds!!!!:)

I beseech you to look at the remains of a feathered dromaeosaurid and tell me it is closer to a mammal than a bird.

J C wrote: »

....as I have already said some 'Sauropods' may have been reptiles....but the Brachiosaurus were Mammals!!!

Brachiosaurus is a sauropod. I suggest you look up what you are talking about before engaging in debate. I don't see why Brachiosaurus would be mammalian while other close relatives within the same order would be reptilian. Your attempts at classifying dinosaurs are lacking in logic and to be honest look like they are being made up as you go along.

J C wrote: »

....probably was some kind of unusual 'Dinosaur' Species....that was killed in the Flood!!!
:pac::):D

A dinosaur with bird like features. One of many.

It amazes me how you can clutch at straws to associate dinosaurs with mammals while not recognizing the obvious (not to mention heavily supported by evidence) relationship between dinosaurs and birds.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

......BEEP!!!!........BEEP!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

........................................BEEP!!!:D

Your arguments grow more convincing by the second.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The human "missing link" is a myth.

....it certainly is still MISSING........because it NEVER existed......except in the fertile imaginings of Evolutionists!!!:D


......BEEP!!!!........BEEP!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

........................................BEEP!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....it certainly is still MISSING........because it NEVER existed!!!:D

Nice of you to overlook the rest of his post. Look at the next sentence.

Atomic Horror wrote:

It's no longer perpetuated even by most creationists, who prefer now to focus on other gaps in the fossil record.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Your arguments grow more convincing by the second.

......BEEP!!!!........BEEP!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

........................................BEEP!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....it (the Human 'Missing Link' Myth) certainly is still MISSING........because it NEVER existed!!!

Galvasean
Nice of you to overlook the rest of his post. Look at the next sentence.

Originally Posted by Atomic Horror
It's no longer perpetuated even by most creationists, who prefer now to focus on other gaps in the fossil record

.....thanks for reminding me that there are 'Missing Links' between ALL Created Kinds....and they are ALL ......er.... STILL missing!!!!:D


......BEEP!!!!........BEEP!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

........................................BEEP!!!:

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Care to define 'sorts' or shall it remain nice and ambiguous like 'kinds'?

.....SORTS were the selected KINDS that were taken on the ARK!!!!:D

Galvasean wrote: »

I beseech you to look at the remains of a feathered dromaeosaurid and tell me it is closer to a mammal than a bird.

.....this is what a selection of Evolutionists have to say about the dromaeosaurid courtesy of Wikipedia:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromaeosauridae

YES A BIRD....."Dromaeosaurids are so birdlike in some ways that they have led some researchers to wonder if they should be better classified as birds."

NOT A BIRD...."However, other scientists, such as Lawrence Witmer, have argued that calling a theropod like Caudipteryx a bird because it has feathers may stretch the word past any useful meaning."

NOT A DINOSAUR....."Other researchers, like Larry Martin believe that dromaeosaurs, along with all maniraptorans are not dinosaurs at all."

ALL MIXED UP....."Martin asserted for decades that birds were unrelated to maniraptorans, but in 2004 he changed his position, and now he agrees that the two are the closest of relatives."

WHO are we to believe......

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ....and YOU will be Saved!!!!!

......BEEP!!!!........BEEP!!!!:D

........................................BEEP!!!:pac::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If the Earth's magnetic field is losing energy faster than it ought to be then that could mean many things. It is certainly not something that would be suppressed by the Atheist Materialist Conspiracy because it does not automatically suggest a young Earth. Which makes it all the more curious that no scientist has reported this, at least that I know of. Find me a primary paper which demonstrates this effect and I'll certainly read it.

....the following New Scientist article suggests that the Earth's Magnetic Field is, and I quote:- "now declining at a rate that suggests it could virtually disappear in about 2000 years.":eek:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9148-ships-logs-give-clues-to-earths-magnetic-decline.html

If the field does flip 2000 years from now, the Northern Lights will be visible all over the planet during the transition, and solar radiation at ground level will be much more intense, with no field to deflect it......so we WILL get 'frazzled'!!:eek:

.....but then the Evolutionists bias towards 'millions of years' comes in and we get the following extraordinary statement:-
"There is no need to worry, though, ...... as our ancestors have lived through quite a few of these transitions already".....HAVE they REALLY!!!!!:D

......BEEP!!!!........BEEP!!!!:D

........................................BEEP!!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....the following New Scientist article suggests that the Earth's Magnetic Field is, and I quote:- "now declining at a rate that suggests it could virtually disappear in about 2000 years.":eek:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9148-ships-logs-give-clues-to-earths-magnetic-decline.html

Primary source means a research paper.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....this is what a selection of Evolutionists have to say about the dromaeosaurid courtesy of Wikipedia:-

Yes. Let us see.

J C wrote: »

YES BIRD....."Dromaeosaurids are so birdlike in some ways that they have led some researchers to wonder if they should be better classified as birds."

Look into the reasoning behind this quote a bit more. The idea behind it is that the dromaeosaurs are a specialized form of bird, birds which originally evolved from dinosaurs.

J C wrote: »

NO BIRD...."However, other scientists, such as Lawrence Witmer, have argued that calling a theropod like Caudipteryx a bird because it has feathers may stretch the word past any useful meaning."

Caudipteryx is not a dromaeosaur.

J C wrote: »

NO DINOSAUR....."Other researchers, like Larry Martin believe that dromaeosaurs, along with all maniraptorans are not dinosaurs at all."

MIXED UP....."Martin asserted for decades that birds were unrelated to maniraptorans, but in 2004 he changed his position, and now he agrees that the two are the closest of relatives."[/quote]

Martin's proposed classification of the dinosauria is lacking in any proof. It is merely a hypothesis at this stage. A lot more data would be needed before verifying his ideas.

J C wrote: »

WHO are we to believe......

I would believe the orthodox view for now considering it has the most evidence to back it up.

ironingbored

J C wrote: »

......BEEP!!!!........BEEP!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

........................................BEEP!!!:D

One of the more eloquent JC posts.

To be honest one could boycott both JC and CDfm [sic] until they agree to something approaching reasoned debate.

Responding to posts such as the above is counterproductive as it gives even a modicum of credence to their fantastical posts.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

I would believe the orthodox view for now considering it has the most evidence to back it up.

....so do you also believe the 'orthodox' Christian view (that you must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be Saved) ......considering that it has the Word of God in the Bible to back it up?

............................BEEP!!!:D

J C

ironingbored wrote: »

One of the more eloquent JC posts.

To be honest one could boycott both JC and CDfm [sic] until they agree to something approaching reasoned debate.

Responding to posts such as the above is counterproductive as it gives even a modicum of credence to their fantastical posts.

......touché.....

.....it's what is known as 'beating you at your own game'.....LOL........

......you are a very serious-minded young man.......for a guy who claims that Pondslime spontaneously evolved into Man......which is one of the best jokes I have ever heard!!!!!:D

......I'll get serious.....when you get real!!!!

...........BEEP............BEEP!!!!!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....so do you also believe the 'orthodox' Christian view (that you must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be Saved) ......considering that it has the Word of God in the Bible to back it up?

............................BEEP!!!:D

Orthodox palaeontological view J C. I like to leave religion outside the realm of palaeontology thank you.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Natural processes do not "manufacture" things. To manufacture means to construct. Specifically to make by hand, but the term is used to describe something built by a person using tools of some kind.

.....another GOOD reason why Materiailistic Evolution could NEVER work....even in theory!!!!:D

...............BEEP!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Firstly, the results would be inaccurate only for items that metabolised water during the flood. Anything else, including the animals and plants killed by the flood, would be unaffected by the reservoir effect. Can suggest another means by which error might be introduced? Secondly, the samples of known age used for calibration aren't just from "later periods". Tree ring samples are available which allow calibration to 8000 BC or so. The trees used for such calibrations are pines which can't metabolise sea water, thus no reservoir effect.

.....Dendrochronology can only definitively age individual trees – any apparent overlap in the ring pattern between timber samples from different trees may be due to a coincidence of localised conditions in the growth patterns at two separate times rather than proof of similar age.
The oldest tree to be aged using Dendrochronology was a Bristlecone Pine aged 4,867 years when it was cut down in 1963 – thereby giving a germination date of 2,904 BC. This is currently the maximum age established by Dendrology. However, even this age comes with a ‘health warning’ because multiple growth rings have been observed within the one year in some Pine species so this Bristlecone Pine is likely to be somewhat younger than it’s number of rings suggests.
The age of this tree is also interesting in that it coincides with the approximate aftermath of Noah’s Flood, i.e 2,500 +/- 300 years BC.
The ‘interruption’ caused by Noah’s Flood is also one of the reasons why all History Books refer to the time before c. 5,000 years ago as “pre-historic”.
.........“Ante-diluvian” would be technically better – but I’m not quibbling!!!!

Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated dates.
Extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. According to David Rohl, the Sweet Track chronology from Southwest England was ‘re-measured’ when it did not agree with the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confidant of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that even dendrochronology is not a clear-cut dating method!!!!:D

........BEEP............BEEP!!!!:D

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Orthodox palaeontological view J C. I like to leave religion outside the realm of palaeontology thank you.

.....but Evolutionist Palaeontological Interpretations are a deeply 'religious' faith-filled exercise......and if you leave the Evolutionist 'religion' outside......you end up with a Creationist Interpretation......which actually fits the evidence much BETTER!!!!:D

........BEEP!!!!!:D

......I am now finding that I can use much less smileys......and still have the same impact........ by using the BEEP!!!!

......I guess this will be my contribution towards 'a better environment' .....on Boards.ie!!!

........it's giving me 'more BANG for my BUCK'......eh.....em.....I mean BEEP!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....but Evolutionist Palaeontological Interpretations are a deeply 'religious' faith-filled exercise

Not faith J C, years of back breaking labour, hard work and diligent study.

J C wrote: »

........BEEP!!!!!:D

......I am now finding that I can use much less smileys......and still have the same impact........ by using the BEEP!!!!

Yes, you still manage to be annoying without contributing anything substantial to proceedings.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Not faith J C, years of back breaking labour, hard work and diligent study.

.......yes Evolutionist Palaeontological Interpretations are the result of plenty of 'back-breaking' 'blood, sweat and tears'......along with a hefty 'dollop' of Evolutionist FAITH!!!!!:D

.......BEEP!!!!:D

Galvasean wrote: »

Yes, you still manage to be annoying without contributing anything substantial to proceedings.

.....In Mt 5:13 Jesus calls Christians "the SALT of the Earth"........Salt is both an irritant and a cleanser...... so, just like Salt....it is to be EXPECTED that True Christians may irritatate......as they spiritually cleanse!!!!!:D


............BEEP!!!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....the following New Scientist article suggests that the Earth's Magnetic Field is, and I quote:- "now declining at a rate that suggests it could virtually disappear in about 2000 years."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9148-ships-logs-give-clues-to-earths-magnetic-decline.html

AtomicHorror
Primary source means a research paper.

.....is a referenced New Scientist article, which is saying that the Earth's Magnetic Field will disappear in 2,000 years, not good enough for you?
......you sound like the type of person who would insist on a 'source paper' to prove that there is a fire......AFTER a fire alarm goes off!!!!!:D

..........Beep...Beep!!!:D

The Article goes on to state "If the field does flip 2000 years from now, the Northern Lights will be visible all over the planet during the transition, and solar radiation at ground level will be much more intense, with no field to deflect it."


.....and isn't it amazing that nobody seems to be in the least concerned about the SHORT timeframe on this particular 'Global Warming' disaster that is about to befall us.....bumping up the production and use of Sun-screen would be an obvious start!!!!
.....could it be that they are ignoring it because the logical conclusion to be drawn from the Earth's Magnetic Field disappearing in 2,000 years time....is that it also must have APPEARED very recently indeed.......probably less than 10,000 years ago, in fact!!!!
......with obvious impliucations for the 'millions of years' brigade and their 'deep time' pet Theory of Evolution!!!!!:D

......BEEP....BEEP........................................................BEEP!!!!:D

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

......BEEP!!!!........BEEP!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

........................................BEEP!!!:D

Road-Runner said 'meep meep'.

You're demonstrating evolution, by the way.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So just thought I'd give you guys a heads-up. I'll be around on this debate a lot less. Probably just weekends and maybe not even that for a while. Trying to finish up my doctorate and my habit of debating on the internet is taking up huge chunks of time time. It's been fun and informative. Just remember the two golden rules:

1) Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution

2) Evolution is not a moral philosophy

In other words, stay focused

Hopefully in a few months I'll be back and kicking ass for the Atheist Materialist Conspiracy. Until then.... have fun guys!!!!! :D:pac:

All the best for your studies!

I note your pastoral concern for the evolutionists here, but neither you nor they can totally quell their conscience by suppressing unwelcome truths.

As you deepen your study of the scientific part of God's truth, may God use it to point you to the One who designed it all.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Natural processes do not "manufacture" things. To manufacture means to construct. Specifically to make by hand, but the term is used to describe something built by a person using tools of some kind. Cosmic rays cannot manufacture anything as they are not people, do not have hands and cannot use tools.

Surely you are not that pedantic!

It is commonly used as a synonym for make, produce, etc., without necessitating any human involvement. Nature can be said to manufacture, as in:
Nature manufactures an amazing array of products and yet it does it very differently than our present industrial system. Nature manufactures with low energy flows, near body conditions, no persistent toxics. Everything that is an output of a process is food for some other process. The loops are closed. Researchers and business people can learn from nature to create better products. Nature has evolved over billions of years. Hence there is much we can learn from the way nature designs things.
http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/Keynote.aspx

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

Surely you are not that pedantic!

It is commonly used as a synonym for make, produce, etc., without necessitating any human involvement. Nature can be said to manufacture, as in:
Nature manufactures an amazing array of products and yet it does it very differently than our present industrial system. Nature manufactures with low energy flows, near body conditions, no persistent toxics. Everything that is an output of a process is food for some other process. The loops are closed. Researchers and business people can learn from nature to create better products. Nature has evolved over billions of years. Hence there is much we can learn from the way nature designs things.
http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/Keynote.aspx

Manufacture - from Medieval Latin manufactura, from Latin manu factus, literally, made by hand.

I thought someone taking things literally would be a admired by a creationist.

I also love that you quoted a piece with the following sentence " Nature has evolved over billions of years"

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Road-Runner said 'meep meep'.

.....is there ANYTHING that you won't pedantically query!!!!:D

.....the pun with the Road-Runner 'Beep' was on a motor vehicle HORN.......so it is more correctly a 'beep beep'......rather than a 'meep meep'!!!!
.....and the Cartoon Character delivered it as a distinct rather nasal....BEEP!!!!!!!!:D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So just thought I'd give you guys a heads-up. I'll be around on this debate a lot less. Probably just weekends and maybe not even that for a while. Trying to finish up my doctorate and my habit of debating on the internet is taking up huge chunks of time time. It's been fun and informative.

....best of luck with your studies.....perhaps you will return to us as a Creation Scientist!!!:

......BEEP!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Just remember the two golden rules:

1) Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution

2) Evolution is not a moral philosophy

....good advice....and VERY TRUE!!!

1) Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution....because Abiogenesis is IMPOSSIBLE and it breaks so many physical and logical Laws.....that it is the Biological equivalent of a Perpetual Motion Machine!!!!

2) Evolution CERTAINLY is NOT a moral philosophy .....it has been invalidly used and abused ........to provide pseudo-scientific justification for all manner of horrific acts!!!!
.........and every Evolutionist that I know condemns Social Darwinism!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Hopefully in a few months I'll be back and kicking ass for the Atheist Materialist Conspiracy. Until then.... have fun guys!!!!! :D:pac:

.....dream on......
........you haven't done much 'ass kicking' that I have seen.....but I suspect that one of the reasons you are retiring from the thread......is to go and metaphorically 'lick' your own metaphorically wounded 'loins'!!!!!:D

......BEEP!!!:D

robindch

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote:

Just remember [...] Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution

....Evolution NEVER happened.....because "nothing comes from nothing in Evolution"!!!!

Head meet desk. Desk meet head. I'm sure you two will get along famously.