The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

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

If he does, he'll be the very first considering you haven't been able to identify a single one yet!

J C

robindch wrote: »

Head meet desk. Desk meet head.

Such non-intelligently directed 'head-banging' ......would induce non-functional tissue DAMAGE just like MUTAGENESIS does......
.......however, the bruises on your head would, at least, heal with time.....but tissue mutagenesis could be permanent and transmissible to your children.....yet another reason why non-intelligently directed 'Molecules to Man' Evolution could NEVER happen!!!!!:D

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

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

If he does (become a Creation Scientist), he'll be the very first considering you haven't been able to identify a single one yet!

.....there is none so 'blind'.......as he who REFUSES to 'see'!!!!!:D

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

WHY do you continue to deny that eminent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists exist.....when it is patently obvious that they do exist???

......by continuing to deny something that is patently TRUE....you are destroying your credibility when it comes to your claims in relation to Evolution!!!!:D

......Creation Scientists live in the 'Real World'......and we accept that BOTH eminently qualified Evolutionary Scientists and Creation Scientists exist!!!!

.....similarly when it comes to the 'Real World' of 'Evolution'..... we accept that it occurs on a limited basis within Kinds using pre-existing Genetic Information!!!:D

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

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

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"

You will find creationists take literally only what is written as such. We also use synonym, simile, metaphor, etc.

I take it you believe every word has only one meaning/use? No wonder you are so confused.

Yes, I took a piece of evolutionist literature to show that evolutionists also use language in the normal way. Atomic Horror and yourself should check it out.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....similarly when it comes to the 'Real World' of 'Evolution'..... we accept that it occurs on a limited basis within Kinds using pre-existing Genetic Information!!!:D

I wish someone would go ahead and define 'kind'.

marco_polo

Galvasean wrote: »

I wish someone would go ahead and define 'kind'.

Or how to measure Genetic Information.

J C

EVOLUTION:-

Charles Darwin DOUBTED it:-
"To suppose that the eye with all it's inimitable contrivances for adjusting focus to different distances, for admitting different light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Anthony Flew STOPPED BELIEVING in it:-
"The more I learned about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code."

Albert Fleischmann REJECTED it:-
"I reject Evolution because I deem it obsolete; the foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with it's long awaited fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep rooted in the heart of man."

Evolution Theory now stands scientifically 'naked'....and exposed as both the worst mistake made in science and the most enduring myth of modern times!!!!:D

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

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Galvasean
I wish someone would go ahead and define 'kind'.

marco_polo
Or how to measure Genetic Information.

....A Kind is a group of living organisms whose common ancestors were Directly Created by God.

.......and Genetic Information is the functional potential of the DNA of a particular organism or group of organisms.:D

....are ye happy now????:D

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


.......I used be a 'dyed in the wool' Evolutionist.....

......one evening in University I confidently challenged a very beautiful young woman .....who was a Creation Scientist......and she had a devastating answer to EVERY challenge that I presented to her!!!!

.......I went into denial and I spent the next five years in intensive attempts to prove her wrong and Evolution right......before I gave up and became a Creation Scientist myself.....

.....I never did meet that beautiful young woman again.....but she is also ultimately responsible for my decision to be Saved after I became a Creation Scientist!!!!!

.......it usually takes about five years......but because of the intensive nature of this thread.......we can expect some 'early' participants to start REALLY doubting Evolution from next year on!!!!!!!!:D

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

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

EVOLUTION:-

Charles Darwin DOUBTED it:-
"To suppose that the eye with all it's inimitable contrivances for adjusting focus to different distances, for admitting different light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

So commonly quoted by Creationists. odd how they never quote the full thing or within context. Here is what Darwin actually wrote in full

Charles Darwin wrote:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

Of course this isn't the first time this has been shown to you on this thread. One might think you were purposely bearing false witness J C.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....A Kind is a group of living organisms whose common ancestors were Directly Created by God.

That's not particularly helpful. That could mean every creature on the planet is of the same kind.
How would a 'kind' vary from say a species or a a genus?

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....A Kind is a group of living organisms whose common ancestors were Directly Created by God.

.......and Genetic Information is the functional potential of the DNA of a particular organism or group of organisms.:D

....are ye happy now????:D

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

Didn't ask for a definition.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Here is what Darwin actually wrote in full

....unfortunately the additional piece quoted by you doesn't significantly alter the conclusion that Darwin had serious DOUBTS about evolution!!!:D


Originally Posted by Charles Darwin
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. ....already dealt with!!!

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. ......so he admits that he cannot even IMAGINE how an eye could be developed by purely materialistic means.....but he is prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt anyway!!!!



How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.......he then admits that he hasn't a clue HOW a nerve could possibly become sensitive to light ........and dismisses even trying to imagine how it could happen with the 'hand wave' that it doesn't concern him!!!!!:D

.......IF he wasn't 'out and out' doubtful of the validity of Evolution .....he was certainly on the border between doubt and denial.......and other quotes (like his admission that the Peacock's Feather gave him palpitations)........would indicate that he was actually on the doubt side of that particular division!!!:D

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

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Didn't ask for a definition.

we measure Genetic Information .......by measuring the functional potential of the DNA of a particular organism or group of organisms.......

.......and the techniques involved includes industrial knowhow and other intellectual property that I am unable to discuss!!!!:pac::D:)

.......Beep!!!!:eek:

robindch

J C wrote: »

.......I went into denial...

Oh, that you had gone into the Liffey instead.

Galvasean

*sigh*
We arent the first people to have this debate J C.

John Stear explains it better than I do:
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/darwin_eye_quote_revisited.htm

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

we measure Genetic Information .......by measuring the functional potential of the DNA of a particular organism or group of organisms.......

.......and the techniques involved includes industrial knowhow and other intellectual property that I am unable to discuss!!!!:pac::D:)

.......Beep!!!!:eek:

Oh Really? Thats a shame.

Galvasean

Unable to discuss?

Creationist conspiracy! :eek:

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

WHY do you continue to deny that eminent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists exist.....when it is patently obvious that they do exist???

It's not obvious at all. Certainly, there are many who claim to be creation scientists but you haven't identified even ONE who actually does creation science! Don't you find that odd? Maybe you can point one out to me? :pac:

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Unable to discuss?

Creationist conspiracy! :eek:

Liking your sig Galv... :pac:

Galvasean

2Scoops wrote: »

It's not obvious at all. Certainly, there are many who claim to be creation scientists but you haven't identified even ONE who actually does creation science! Don't you find that odd? Maybe you can point one out to me? :pac:

Define Creation Science..

2Scoops

Galvasean wrote: »

Define Creation Science..

Science about Biblical creation, encompassing investigations testing hypothesis linked to it. Simple really. You'd think there would be at least one scientist actually conducting these experiments. But, alas, no. :pac:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....I used be a 'dyed in the wool' Evolutionist.....

......one evening in University I confidently challenged a very beautiful young woman .....who was a Creation Scientist......and she had a devastating answer to EVERY challenge that I presented to her!!!!

.......I went into denial and I spent the next five years in intensive attempts to prove her wrong and Evolution right......before I gave up and became a Creation Scientist myself.....

robindch
Oh, that you had gone into the Liffey instead.

......that is a particularly nasty comment (and unworthy of you, Robin) !!!!!

......suicide is a very SERIOUS matter.....with more people committing suicide in Ireland at present than are being killed on the roads!!!!!

......thanks be to God I believed on Jesus Christ and got Saved instead of 'going into the Liffey' as you have suggested.

......and I would appeal to anybody reading this thread and contemplating suicide to seek help.........The Samaritans are very good and they operate 24/7 on 1850-60 90 90.

......and if you are contemplating suicide.........remember that you are a unique and special Creation of God........and He DOES EXIST .....and He LOVES you and wants to Save YOU!!!!

marco_polo

2Scoops wrote: »

Science about Biblical creation, encompassing investigations testing hypothesis linked to it. Simple really. You'd think there would be at least one scientist actually conducting these experiments. But, alas, no. :pac:

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

.....a pair of EVOLUTIONISTS....discussing the Miracle of Abiogenesis.....no doubt!!!!!:D

.......or is it the infamous 'Miracle of the Missing Link'.....or perhaps it's the 'Miracle of The Big Bang'......that they are discussing!!!!!

.......they look like a right 'pair of bankers' .....eh....em ...I mean Evolutionists!!!!:D:eek:

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

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

......YES Creation Science IS a tough job......but WHO said that it was easy????:D

......only the BEST scientists ARE Creation Scientists!!!!!:eek:

......and that poor whinging guy in the white coat.....I have already told you that I can't bear to see a grown Evolutionist cry!!!:eek::D

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

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....A Kind is a group of living organisms whose common ancestors were Directly Created by God.

.......and Genetic Information is the functional potential of the DNA of a particular organism or group of organisms.:D

....are ye happy now????:D

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


.......I used be a 'dyed in the wool' Evolutionist.....

......one evening in University I confidently challenged a very beautiful young woman .....who was a Creation Scientist......and she had a devastating answer to EVERY challenge that I presented to her!!!!

.......I went into denial and I spent the next five years in intensive attempts to prove her wrong and Evolution right......before I gave up and became a Creation Scientist myself.....

.....I never did meet that beautiful young woman again.....but she is also ultimately responsible for my decision to be Saved after I became a Creation Scientist!!!!!

.......it usually takes about five years......but because of the intensive nature of this thread.......we can expect some 'early' participants to start REALLY doubting Evolution from next year on!!!!!!!!:D

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

Perhaps you are just in the wrong business? Five minutes should have been plenty, nevermind five years.

Mabye one day you will meet a foxy evolutionist and come back over to this side

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Unable to discuss?

Creationist conspiracy! :eek:

......NO conspiracy......just OTHER PEOPLE'S property rights!!!!:D

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

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Perhaps you are just in the wrong business? Five minutes should have been plenty, nevermind five years.

Mabye one day you will meet a foxy evolutionist and come back over to this side

......I know.....any right-thinking person SHOULD be able to conclude that Pondslime CANNOT evolve into Man.......in five minutes.....

.......the fact that it took me five years shows just how strong my FAITH in Evolution actually was!!!!

.......I have yet to meet a 'foxy' Evolutionist.......all the REALLY sexy Scientists....are Creationists!!!!:eek::D

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

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.......I have yet to meet a 'foxy' Evolutionist.......all the REALLY sexy Scientists....are Creationists!!!!:eek::D

Though not creation scientists, apparently, given your inability to identify that even one exists! :pac:

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Though not creation scientists, apparently, given your inability to identify that even one exists! :pac:

.....here is a partial list of some of the 'Critters':-

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

.....and here is another list:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/

Today, thousands of creation scientists repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. They can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are rising rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation science is "religion." Such statements today merely reveal the speaker's own liberal social philosophies — not his or her awareness of scientific facts.

Here is the ICR Scientists & Faculty
http://www.icr.org/research/scientists_faculty/

Here is the ICR Technical Advisory Board
http://www.icr.org/research/tech_adv_board/

Here are some peer reviewed Research Papers:-
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

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