The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

......rock on brother!!!!!:D


......and here is a debunking of the argument that Human fossils are rare....and not generally found with Dinosaurs:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/human-and-dino-fossils-together

MBEEP!!!!:D

Damning evidence indeed. :rolleyes:

Actually, all we know for sure is that they weren’t buried together.

..

Just because animals are not found together does not mean they do not live in the same world at the same time.

I am sure nobody ever bothers reading your links usually, so maybe that is why you though that little one would slip through. Isn't telling porkies a sin though?:eek:

The usual high standards of evidence required of creationist as well

As biblical creationists, we don’t require that human and dinosaur fossils be found in the same layers. Whether they are found or not, does not affect the biblical view of history.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

.....and here are more Human footprints.......probably Pre-Flood Adamites!!!

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/7686

....and here is another footprint in lithified mudstone....in Egypt!!!!
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=588&art_id=nw20070820183015779C298328

.....and here they speculate that the 40,000 Evolutionist years old footprints .....were actually over 1 MILLION Evolutionist years old......i.e 'shockingly old'....as one scientist called them!!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051130232517.htm

.......they were old allright.........about 7,000 years old!!!!!:D:eek:

MBEEP!!!:D:eek:

The last link seems to be missing?

Galvasean

Evolution in action? Superwoms! :eek:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081007-super-worms.html

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

The last link seems to be missing?

.....its must be the 'Missing Link'!!!!:D:pac::D:p

.....................MBEEP!!!:D

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Evolution in action? Superwoms! :eek:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081007-super-worms.html

......the question mark is correctly placed.........they are STILL Worms.....of the Worm Kind.....and this is an example of the diversity capacity potential inbuilt in the original Creation....interacting with environmental SELECTION!!!!!!!:pac::):D


.................MBEEP!!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

and this is an example of the diversity capacity potential inbuilt in the original Creation....interacting with environmental SELECTION!!!!!!!:pac::):D

You know in a round about way you pretty much just described evolution by means of natural selection.

HUZAH!

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Really? Thats news to me. Have you kept a list like the TalkOrigins list of Creationist Claims , complete with rebuttals for over 550 different claims? These things are great for keeping score.
From what I can tell its something like Creationists 0:Evolutionists 553 on creationists claims.(for convincing rebuttals of evolutionists claims... well we'll have to wait for J Cs list to see )

Here's a start:
The TrueOrigin Archive
http://trueorigin.org/

wolfsbane

2Scoops said:

The limitations of 14C are widely known and this investigation has nothing to do with Creation. So, while I accept that this science of sorts (measured 14c in samples), it says nothing about the age of the Earth or Biblical creationism.

Now I see why you fail to see the obvious - your logic is deficient. See if you can follow this:
If C14 exists in the samples, they cannot be millions of years old. If they are not that old, then the whole radiometric dating construct is giving vastly inflated ages. If it is so faulty, then the evidence against the creationist age-frame no longer exists. So it says a lot about the age of the Earth or Biblical creationism.

A scientist, perhaps (albeit a bad one, given his unsupported conclusions from the 14C data); a creation journalist, certainly; a creation scientist, no.

Is that the best you can do? I want creation science, a creation scientist, or at the very least an investigation debunking evolution. Can you do it?

Starting with the last, a reduction of earth-age to C14 levels would rule out evolution. OK, here's the logic:
Evolution requires multimillion of years to go from the first replicating molecule to present conditions; radio-metric dating being adjusted to not exceed the C14 range would rule out the possibility of evolution having caused existing conditions.

For the other parts of your request, here's further evidence of creation science and creation scientists:
The Creation of Cosmic Magnetic Fields by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/ICC08_Cosmic_Magn_%20Fields.pdf

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

This is why it is not science:

"Upon realizing that Noah's Flood involved a planetary-scale tectonic catastrophe, he left Campus Crusade to begin a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA in order to obtain the expertise and credentials to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific level."

Drawing your conclusions before you have even studied the subject is so far away from science it is laughable.

You show a remarkable lack of logic.

If someone went into astromony because they were deeply impressed by the vastness of the universe and wanted to see if they could understand the physics that colud give rise to its existence and behaviuor, would that mean they are not a scientist?

I mean, they are taking the information that the universe is vast, something they have been told, for granted. Maybe they will find their research supports that - or not (hypothetically). Doesn't make them any less a scientist than a guy who goes into astromony without an opinion on the size of the universe.

Care to rethink your definition of scientist?

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

If C14 exists in the samples, they cannot be millions of years old.

That's quite a big assumption. I suggest you read the criticism of the C14 data by others. Oh, and LOL @ you correcting someone's logic. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

If they are not that old, then the whole radiometric dating construct is giving vastly inflated ages. If it is so faulty, then the evidence against the creationist age-frame no longer exists. So it says a lot about the age of the Earth or Biblical creationism.

Even if radiometric dating was completely invalidated (which it hasn't, btw), there are still plenty of other available data to suggest the real age of the Earth. None are consistent with Biblical creation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

here's further evidence of creation science and creation scientists:
The Creation of Cosmic Magnetic Fields by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/ICC08_Cosmic_Magn_%20Fields.pdf

A fine essay by a gifted creation journalist. Care to find me some creation science or a creation scientist? I can only assume by your stubborn refusal to do so that you, like J C, are unable. :pac:

wolfsbane

2Scoops said:

That's quite a big assumption. I suggest you read the criticism of the C14 data by others.

You mean scientists differ? :eek:

Oh, and LOL @ you correcting someone's logic. :rolleyes:

None so blind...

Even if radiometric dating was completely invalidated (which it hasn't, btw), there are still plenty of other available data to suggest the real age of the Earth. None are consistent with Biblical creation.

Set them up and we'll see.

A fine essay by a gifted creation journalist. Care to find me some creation science or a creation scientist? I can only assume by your stubborn refusal to do so that you, like J C, are unable. :pac:

At last I see you for what you are - a timewaster who refuses to recognise whatever evidence is contrary to your beliefs. Sad.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

You show a remarkable lack of logic.

I think you will find it is your logic that is flawed good sir.

If someone went into astromony because they were deeply impressed by the vastness of the universe and wanted to see if they could understand the physics that colud give rise to its existence and behaviuor, would that mean they are not a scientist?

The more acurate analogy for a creationist would be someone who cannot accept the vastness of the universe and sets out to prove it is not vast.

I mean, they are taking the information that the universe is vast, something they have been told, for granted. Maybe they will find their research supports that - or not (hypothetically). Doesn't make them any less a scientist than a guy who goes into astromony without an opinion on the size of the universe.

No of course not. The key in that paragraph is "maybe they will find heir research supports that - or not". There is no "Or Not" in creationism. A proper scientist sides with the evidence in front of them irrespective of their belief. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries been made as a result of scientists being able to overcome any preconcieved notion they may have had prior to carrying out experiments. Show me one the "Or not" papers from creationist "science".

Care to rethink your definition of scientist?

No.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
and this is an example of the diversity capacity potential inbuilt in the original Creation....interacting with environmental SELECTION!!!!!!!

Galvasean
You know in a round about way you pretty much just described evolution by means of natural selection.

.......does holding such views make somebody a 'Creation Evolutionist' then......and could a 'Creation Evolutionist' CONTINUE to teach kids in Science Class??????

i.e. if a fully qualified Science Teacher announced that s/he was a 'Creation Evolutionist' should such a person hold their job????

MBEEP...............MBEEP!!!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.......does holding such views make somebody a 'Creation Evolutionist' then......and could a 'Creation Evolutionist' CONTINUE to teach kids in Science Class??????

i.e. if a fully qualified Science Teacher announced that s/he was a 'Creation Evolutionist' should such a person hold their job????

MBEEP...............MBEEP!!!!!:D

of course 'original creation' could mean just about anything.

Hmmm, a Creation evolutionist... that's probably a theistic evolutionist. I imagine assuming he/she stuck to the curriculum there should be no problem.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

You know in a round about way you pretty much just described evolution by means of natural selection.

That's the really funny/weird thing about creationists -- almost all of them accept that evolution occurs by natural selection.

The hang-ups arise mainly with respect to abiogenesis, which, as must have been pointed out a thousand times on this thread alone, is not strictly a part of neo-darwinist theories of life at all. By far the largest of the remaining problems is understanding how selected-randomness can produce new features, ex-nihilo. Amusingly, this creationist objection itself has evolved ex-nihilo since Crick and Watson, er, built on the results of Rosalind Franklin's crystallographic work of 1952.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

2Scoops said:

You mean scientists differ? :eek:


None so blind...


Set them up and we'll see.


At last I see you for what you are - a timewaster who refuses to recognise whatever evidence is contrary to your beliefs. Sad.

I can live with your condescension, but how can you sleep at night with your hypocrisy? :eek:

Oh, and still waiting for a single example of creation science. Take your time; it's been 3 years, after all. Feel free to write me off, fob me off, or otherwise try to divert and distract from your inability to come up with even a single example... :pac:

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

of course 'original creation' could mean just about anything.

Hmmm, a Creation evolutionist... that's probably a theistic evolutionist. I imagine assuming he/she stuck to the curriculum there should be no problem.

.....and can they teach a tiny bit of 'Intelligent Design'.....along with the huge dollops of 'Moronic Design' that they are required to teach???:D

.....if somebody asks them whether they believe they are 'Intelligently Designed' or 'Moronically Designed'.....can they claim the Intelligent option???

MBEEP!!!:D:eek:

AtomicHorror

In my wanderings through some other messageboards I found a fellow on a physics forum claiming that the world is flat, the stars an illusion and other planets a lie cooked up by NASA and the Atheist Materialist Conspiracy in order to control the masses and hide the Truth of God. Nothing we could tell the fellow would convince him that the world is a sphere. He even had answers to explain away why ships appear over the horizon mast-first on a flat Earth. A spherical Earth would cause his comfortable view of the world to collapse, I suppose.

This, and his incoherent writing style, reminded me of J C.

J C wrote: »

.....and can they teach a tiny bit of 'Intelligent Design'.....along with the huge dollops of 'Moronic Design' that they are required to teach???:D

.....if somebody asks them if they believe that they are 'Intelligently Designed' or 'Moronically Designed'.....can the claim the Intelligent option???

MBEEP!!!:D:eek:

If your designer exists, He is a total moron and deserves to lose his job. He gave me a backup kidney, redundant lungs and more fingers than I need. But only one heart, which if it fails for so much as a moment, kills me instantly. That's one huge design flaw. Don't get me started on irreducible complexity either. Whoever thought it would be a good idea to build critical points into some of our most important biochemical cascades but build backup redundancy into others (with no regard to their relative importance) has clearly been drinking and designing.

"Let me see now, I better make sure the lift has two of every button just in case one of them sticks. Oh and backup LED lights around the edges, those look cool. One cable should do for the lifting mechanism, I'm already over budget with the extra mirror I'm putting in this badboy."

marco_polo

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In my wanderings through some other messageboards I found a fellow on a physics forum claiming that the world is flat, the stars an illusion and other planets a lie cooked up by NASA and the Atheist Materialist Conspiracy in order to control the masses and hide the Truth of God. Nothing we could tell the fellow would convince him that the world is a sphere. He even had answers to explain away why ships appear over the horizon mast-first on a flat Earth. A spherical Earth would cause his comfortable view of the world to collapse, I suppose.

This, and his incoherent writing style, reminded me of J C.



If your designer exists, He is a total moron and deserves to lose his job. He gave me a backup kidney, redundant lungs and more fingers than I need. But only one heart, which if it fails for so much as a moment, kills me instantly. That's one huge design flaw. Don't get me started on irreducible complexity either. Whoever thought it would be a good idea to build critical points into some of our most important biochemical cascades but build backup redundancy into others (with no regard to their relative importance) has clearly been drinking and designing.

"Let me see now, I better make sure the lift has two of every button just in case one of them sticks. Oh and backup LED lights around the edges, those look cool. One cable should do for the lifting mechanism, I'm already over budget with the extra mirror I'm putting in this badboy."

And try explaining the benifits of ID to this guy.

"Hmm .. seem to be out of flat fish parts, but I just need to create a few more, and I am suppose to be finished the oceans by midnight.

........

......

"Wait a minute ......"

Shapes

Jc,

Sorry if you done this already but 823 pages of posts is a lot to trawl through...

What exactly is your faith and what is it that you believe in relation to God? What I'm asking I guess is are you a member of a particular church or belief system/religion which would define exactly what you believe in relation to God?

J C

Shapes wrote: »

Jc,

Sorry if you done this already but 823 pages of posts is a lot to trawl through...

What exactly is your faith and what is it that you believe in relation to God? What I'm asking I guess is are you a member of a particular church or belief system/religion which would define exactly what you believe in relation to God?

....I am a (Saved/Born Again/True) Christian.:)

Fanny Cradock

marco_polo wrote: »

And try explaining the benifits of ID to this guy.

"Hmm .. seem to be out of flat fish parts, but I just need to create a few more, and I am suppose to be finished the oceans by midnight.

........

......

"Wait a minute ......"

That's one fug-ugly beasty.

studiorat

^^^

I was wondering where that had gone. Interesting fish though, they have eyes on both sides with they are developing and the eye moves across as they begin to apend more time on the bottom. Put him on his side and he looks quite normal.

Probably the wrong PLACE for this though...

NEAAAA-HAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In my wanderings through some other messageboards I found a fellow on a physics forum claiming that the world is flat, the stars an illusion and other planets a lie cooked up by NASA and the Atheist Materialist Conspiracy in order to control the masses and hide the Truth of God. Nothing we could tell the fellow would convince him that the world is a sphere. He even had answers to explain away why ships appear over the horizon mast-first on a flat Earth. A spherical Earth would cause his comfortable view of the world to collapse, I suppose.

....I suppose the Physics Board is the best place for him.....a 'Flat Earther' must feel right at home with a crowd who believe that the Earth ITSELF spontaneously emerged from NOTHING.........indeed it is quite possible that the 'Flat Earther' may actually LAUGH at his fellow Physicists who are 'Big Bangers'!!!!!:eek::pac::D;)

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If your designer exists, He is a total moron and deserves to lose his job. He gave me a backup kidney, redundant lungs and more fingers than I need. But only one heart, which if it fails for so much as a moment, kills me instantly.

.......you would be very glad of your 'backup' kidney....if the other one failed and in any event two neat little kidneys and two lungs are better that one large overworked kidney and lung!!!!!
.....as for your one Heart that is all you need .....the beating of a second one would grossly interfere with the operation of the first one !!!!! If there were two hearts they would have to pump in series and if one gave up, the other couldn't function properly.....and the person would die!!!!!

.....our God is a mighty God......and a brilliant Desgner!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Don't get me started on irreducible complexity either. Whoever thought it would be a good idea to build critical points into some of our most important biochemical cascades but build backup redundancy into others (with no regard to their relative importance) has clearly been drinking and designing.

......that's just the way it is BABY!!!!!:D
......YOU try designing the Sight Biochemical Cascade better.....and see how you get on!!!!

.....you're like a guy who sees a Super Computer, and immediately starts to loudly criticise the colour of it's outer housing!!:D

MBEEP!!:D

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

And try explaining the benifits of ID to this guy.

"Hmm .. seem to be out of flat fish parts, but I just need to create a few more, and I am suppose to be finished the oceans by midnight.

.....I think I will take a rest...and let studiorat explain it......

studiorat wrote:

I was wondering where that had gone. Interesting fish though, they have eyes on both sides with they are developing and the eye moves across as they begin to apend more time on the bottom. Put him on his side and he looks quite normal.

.....on second thoughts, I better explain it myself.......this fish is the result of the interaction of the genetic diversity of the
original Creation with The Fall!!!!:D

....it's the fish equivalent of an Evolutionist!!!!!! :eek:


MBEEP..............MBEEP!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....I suppose the Physics Board is the best place for him.....a 'Flat Earther' must feel right at home with a crowd who believe that the Earth spontaneously emerged from NOTHING.........indeed the 'Flat Earther' may even sometimes LAUGH at his fellow Physicists who are 'Nothing Blew Upppers'!!!!!:eek::pac::D;)

I'm sure he laughs at a lot of things. Simple minds are easily amused.

J C wrote: »

.......you would be very glad of your 'backup' kidney....if the other one failed and in any event two neat little kidneys and two lungs are better that one large overworked kidney and lung!!!!!

Yes, but one could as easily have a single of each with twice the capacity. There's no rhyme nor reason governing which organs get a backup and which don't.

J C wrote: »

.....as for your one Heart that is all you need .....the beating of a second one would grossly interfere with the operation of the first one !!!!! If there were two hearts they would have to pump in series and if one gave up, the other couldn't function properly.....and the person would die!!!!!

Oh yeah... an infinitely intelligent designer that can get the disparate chambers of one heart to synchronise perfectly but can't figure out a way to synchronise two hearts.... right...

Hint to the big guy: connect the sinoatrial nodes. And don't give up your day job, you suck at designing life.

J C wrote: »

.....our God is a might God......and a brilliant Desgner!!!:D

Sure.

J C wrote: »

......that's just the way it is BABY!!!!!:D
......YOU try designing the Sight Biochemical Cascade better.....and see how you get on!!!!

Redundancy.

J C wrote: »

.....you're like a guy who sees a Super Computer, and immediately starts to loudly criticise the colour of it's outer housing!!:D

MBEEP!!:D

Yeah coz your heart and biochemical cascades are just superficial details.

studiorat

Man I can't believe you didn't get the Place joke!

And I can't believe I'm talking about bloody fish here!

Anyway, that's what they do. There was no "the Fall", I'll give you an pagan interpertation from your bible, but plaice were not just flipped out like bleeding pan-cakes just so as they'd survive a flood or some horse-sh1t.

You really shouldn't get all your facts from watchtower.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm sure he laughs at a lot of things. Simple minds are easily amused.

.....aithionn cairóg ..... cairóg eile!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes, but one could as easily have a single of each with twice the capacity.

....you could....but what would you do if your lung collapsed or your kidney failed?????

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Oh yeah... an infinitely intelligent designer that can get the disparate chambers of one heart to synchronise perfectly but can't figure out a way to synchronise two hearts.... right...

Hint to the big guy: connect the sinoatrial nodes.

....and STILL if one gave up, the other couldn't function properly.....and the person would die!!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And don't give up your day job, you suck at designing life

....I don't know about you .....but He did a very good job designing me....at least that is what all the women I know tell me!!!!!:pac::):D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....you're like a guy who sees a Super Computer, and immediately starts to loudly criticise the colour of it's outer housing!!:D


AtomicHorror
Yeah coz your heart and biochemical cascades are just superficial details.

......and WHAT exactly is wrong with a healthy heart....or any biochemical cascade?????

MBEEP!!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....aithionn cairóg ..... cairóg eile!!!!:D

Even his Irish comes in weird punctuation. Awesome! :pac:

edit: I just noticed our pacman smiley has eyes on the side of his head like that fish!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....aithionn cairóg ..... cairóg eile!!!!:D

"Takes one to know one" is about the best argument you've come up with in over 800 pages. Say, I can recognise the following objects:

Rocks
Houses
Trees
Squirrels

Am I all of these too?

J C wrote: »

....you could....but what would you do if your lung collapsed or your kidney failed?????

Die. What happens if my non-redundant heart fails? What happens if my non-redundant digestive system fails? What happens if my non-redundant thymus fails? The redundancy is random. Bad design.

J C wrote: »

....and STILL if one gave up, the other couldn't function properly.....and the person would die!!!!!

Not if properly designed. Are you saying your Designer is not up to the task?

J C wrote: »

....I don't know about you .....but He did a very good job designing me....at least that is what all the women I know tell me!!!!!:pac::):D

I don't care.

J C wrote: »

......and WHAT exactly is wrong with a healthy heart....or any biochemical cascade?????

Nothing. My point was that your analogy was rubbish. Again.

J C wrote: »

MBEEP!!!!:D

See you next week. Hope you get the tourette's under control.