The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....just like an individual Lash Hair is a small part of the total Eyelash.......the bottom of the Coccyx is a small part of the total Coccyx!!!!

However the individual eyelash has its own purpose whereas the bottom of the coccyx does not. Remove the individual lash hair and the function of the total eyelash unit is diminished. Remove the bottom part of the coccyx and the unit works just as well.

J C wrote: »

.....NOBODY on the thread disassociated themselves from the Puitanical remarks......so YES it can be safely assumed that they hold the same views.....

Sometimes I wonder if you even read half the stuff you reply to. As I said before:

Galvasean wrote:

If one poster says they don't find something tasteful it is not my duty, nor that of anyone else, to jump in and give my own opinion on something as off topic as that.

So no, it can't be 'safely' assumed considering the assumption is wrong.

J C wrote: »

and indeed many Atheist Regimes have had quite puritanical official censorship on sexual issues......George Orwells bleak 1984 novel gives a hint as to why such Puritanism may exist......an all powerful state may not be actually all powerful at all......IF its citizens have divided loyalties.....to their sexual partners.....and to the state!!!!!

Oh yes if the characters in a fictional book held a belief then I too must have the exact same characteristics as them. :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

.....I'm pretty sure that even these guys would 'draw the line' at an EXTERNAL Lung!!!:D

If they were real...

J C wrote: »

....a fully developed Scrotum is technically an ADULT feature!!!!:D:):eek:

While trying to brag about your genitalia on an internet message board is a distinctly juvenile practice.

J C wrote: »

.....and you haven't explained WHY it is in the interest of asexual and sexually immature plants to have VERY NUTRITIOUS leaves.......

You never asked before. The answer is:
Photosynthesis - the process in which plants generate their own nutrients from the sun.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....Creation Scientists and ID Proponents have made considerably progress in developng measurement systems for DNA 'information content'......watch this space!!!!:D

Oh but when do they plan to tell the world of these great advancements?
You have been making such claims for years now and alas, not a shred of new data.

HouseHippo

J C wrote: »

........I would......IF it actually happened!!!!!!:pac::):D

........and predicting that the Evolutionists will be roundly defeated on every issue that they bring up isn't so much a prediction......as a CERTAINTY!!!!:D

You must definitely belive in the afterlife cause you are wasting what precious time you have on earth arguing with strangers on the internet

pH

J C wrote: »

.....and in any event, it would still be eaten by various creatures if it only had a TINY FRACTION of the edible flesh which it contains!!!!!

You should probably have a look at a wild strawberry (as evolved) rather than what you would call a strawberry (the garden strawberry) which has been bred and artificially selected for size for a couple of hundred years.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Using the same logic, in what sense is asexual and sexually immature plants having nutritious leaves good design ?

....it is EXCELLENT Design....when you want to feed animals that you have ALSO Created.....and ONLY God could have such 'overview'.....certainly 'Blind Chance' and his hapless cousin 'Moronic Design'.......would NEVER do so!!!!!!!:D:):eek:

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

You should probably have a look at a wild strawberry (as evolved) rather than what you would call a strawberry (the garden strawberry) which has been bred and artificially selected for size for a couple of hundred years.

Thank you for pointing that out. I overlooked that myself.
Similarly the banana as we know it came from similar artificial selection.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....it is EXCELLENT Design....when you want to feed animals that you have ALSO Created.....and ONLY God could have such 'overview'.....certainly 'Blind Chance' and his hapless cousin 'Moronic Design'.......would NEVER do so!!!!!!!:D:):eek:

Of course the animals could just have easily have evolved to exploit such bounty.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....it is EXCELLENT Design....when you want to feed animals that you have ALSO Created.....and ONLY God could have such 'overview'.....certainly 'Blind Chance' and his hapless cousin 'Moronic Design'.......would NEVER do so!!!!!!!:D:):eek:

But.. but.. a few post ago it was a bad thing remember .

So it is a good thing then? Go evolution.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

However the individual eyelash has its own purpose whereas the bottom of the coccyx does not. Remove the individual lash hair and the function of the total eyelash unit is diminished. Remove the bottom part of the coccyx and the unit works just as well.

....the function of the eyelash declines in direct correlation with the percentage of eyelash removed......ditto with the Coccyx bone!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

While trying to brag about your genitalia on an internet message board is a distinctly juvenile practice.

....I wasn't bragging....I was just expressing surprise that an Evolutionist considered that his Scrotum was a Secondary Sexual Stimulant for the opposite sex!!!:eek::pac::):D

.....my advice to you....is when you are in a hole...stop digging (and BTW no sexual imagery is implied in this statement of fact).......one has to be so careful to avoid the puritanical wrath of the Evolutionists on this thread!!!!:D

Galvasean wrote: »

You never asked before. The answer is:
Photosynthesis - the process in which plants generate their own nutrients from the sun.

.....poisonous plants ALSO benefit from photosynthesis....without the danger of predation.....so WHY is in the interest of asexual and sexually immature plants to have VERY NUTRITIOUS leaves.......
.....Creation by a loving omnipotent God ......is the MOST LIKELY explanation!!!!!!!!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....it is EXCELLENT Design....when you want to feed animals that you have ALSO Created.....and ONLY God could have such 'overview'.....certainly 'Blind Chance' and his hapless cousin 'Moronic Design'.......would NEVER do so!!!!!!!


marco_polo
So it is a good thing then? Go evolution.

.....BUT it has NO Evolutionary explantion.....yet it is FULLY CONSISTENT with Creation!!!:D

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Of course the animals could just have easily have evolved to exploit such bounty.

.......and plants should have 'evolved' to SUPPRESS such activity.....but they DIDN'T.....they produce PERFECTLY NUTRITIOUS FOOD for the animals.....for NO REWARD....except being eaten.......only Creation by an awesome God can explain this!!!!:D

...there goes 'evolution'......'up in smoke'............and not for the first time on this thread!!!!!:D

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

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

.....with NO Evolutionary explantion.....but FULLY CONSISTENT with Creation!!!:D

Ahem

Galvasean wrote: »

Of course the animals could just have easily have evolved to exploit such bounty.

J C wrote: »

.......and plants should have 'evolved' to SUPPRESS such activity.....but they DIDN'T.....they produce PERFECTLY NUTRITIOUS FOOD for the animals.....for NO REWARD....except being eaten.......only Creation by an awesome God can explain this!!!!:D

...there goes 'evolution'......'up in smoke'............and not for the first time on this thread!!!!!:D

Not so fast.

In case it has escaped your attention plants have several ways of defending themselves. Some plants can grow very tall. Some grow in a hidden or hard-to-get-to place like a steep, rocky cliff. If a plant has really tasty leaves, herbivores may eat the leaves instead of the seeds. Some plants have sharp or slippery parts that discourage insects and animals from getting too close, like the thorns on a rosebush. Of course posion is another valid option.

Whatever plants you are thinking of, the fact that they are still here implies that their survival strategy is working just fine without poison.

J C

HouseHippo wrote: »

You must definitely belive in the afterlife cause you are wasting what precious time you have on earth arguing with strangers on the internet

.....and WHY are ye guys (who DON'T believe in an afterlife) doing so......

......what amazes me is that so many ATHEISTS are debating with me and so few Christians do so!!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....the function of the eyelash declines in direct correlation with the percentage of eyelash removed......ditto with the Coccyx bone!!!

Nice try. My point still stands that the individual eye lash can serve a purpose on it's own (albeit nowhere near as effective as when in a group) while the part of the coccyx I refer to serves no purpose either alone or with all the other bits present.

J C wrote: »

....I wasn't bragging....I was just expressing surprise that an Evolutionist considered that his Scrotum was a Secondary Sexual Stimulant for the opposite sex!!!:eek::pac::):D

I would have taught the male's penis would be the primary, with the scrotum being the secondary. Correct me if I'm wrong.

J C wrote: »

.....my advice to you....is when you are in a hole...stop digging (and BTW no sexual imagery is implied in this statement of fact).......

Of course one as pure minded as me would never assume. :P
How big is your hole (that you have been digging) J C, how long has it been, 3 years?

J C wrote: »

one has to be so careful to avoid the puritanical wrath of the Evolutionists on this thread!!!!:D

I'd be more worried about PDN's wrath. Luckily we have resisted the urge to make planetary puns.

J C wrote: »

.....poisonous plants can ALSO benefit from photosynthesis....without the danger of predation.....so WHY is in the interest of asexual and sexually immature plants to have VERY NUTRITIOUS leaves.......

That is a good question J C. Luckily I have an answer for it too. The poison is an evolutionary adaptation to ward of animals that would eat their otherwise nutritious leaves (which is harmful to the plant). In turn some animals have evolved a resistance to such poisons. In turn the plants become a bit more poisonous and the animals a little bit more resistant and so on and so forth. It is often referred to as an 'evolutionary arms race', a great catalyst for evolution by means of natural selection.
As I've stated before the nutrition is not made by the plants for the animals (they are actually stealing it one could say), but for themselves. The leaves store nutrients which can be absorbed later in times of hardship (ie: winter when less energy can be absorbed directly from the sun). So in a sense a tree's leaves are a bit like a fridge system. You gather up as much food as you can while the food is plentiful and store it for later when food becomes scarce.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Ahem





Not so fast.

In case it has escaped your attention plants have several ways of defending themselves. Some plants can grow very tall. Some grow in a hidden or hard-to-get-to place like a steep, rocky cliff. If a plant has really tasty leaves, herbivores may eat the leaves instead of the seeds. Some plants have sharp or slippery parts that discourage insects and animals from getting too close, like the thorns on a rosebush. Of course posion is another valid option.

Whatever plants you are thinking of, the fact that they are still here implies that their survival strategy is working just fine without poison.

.....so please explain what possible benefit a Cabbage (whose soft seed don't survive digestion.....or immature Grass (which is much more nutrituous than mature Grass) gets from being so tasty that they are eaten (often to bloating point) by animals????:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.......and plants should have 'evolved' to SUPPRESS such activity.....but they DIDN'T.....they produce PERFECTLY NUTRITIOUS FOOD for the animals.....for NO REWARD....except being eaten.......only Creation by an awesome God can explain this!!!!:D

marco_polo wrote: »

In case it has escaped your attention plants have several ways of defending themselves. Some plants can grow very tall. Some grow in a hidden or hard-to-get-to place like a steep, rocky cliff. If a plant has really tasty leaves, herbivores may eat the leaves instead of the seeds. Some plants have sharp or slippery parts that discourage insects and animals from getting too close, like the thorns on a rosebush. Of course posion is another valid option.

Whatever plants you are thinking of, the fact that they are still here implies that their survival strategy is working just fine without poison.

Thanks Marco. Saved me another (long) reply.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....so please explain what possible benefit a Cabbage (whose soft seed don't survive digestion.....or immature Grass (which is much more nutrituous than mature Grass) gets from being so tasty that they are eaten (often to bloating point) by animals????:D

You will find that the modern cabbage was bred in a similar fashion to strawberries and bananas. Therefore in it's current form it is not technically a naturally occurring plant. The seeds in this case are purposely planted by humans who select the cabbages based on size, colour, taste etc. rather than reproductive strategy.

In the case of most grasses, to put it simply, they grow in such vast quantities that it is virtually impossible for animals to eat them all, allowing a significant number to survive to adulthood and reproduce.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

.....and WHY are ye guys (who DON'T believe in an afterlife) doing so......

......what amazes me is that so many ATHEISTS are debating with me and so few Christians do so!!!!:D

I ask myself this everytime I click reply under your name. We must like teaching.

Don't you feel you have learnt so much about seed dispersal tonight?

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

.....so please explain what possible benefit a Cabbage (whose soft seed don't survive digestion.....or immature Grass (which is much more nutrituous than mature Grass) gets from being so tasty that they are eaten (often to bloating point) by animals????:D

In the case of grass, sure it is a pain in the butt being eaten, but perhaps you may have noticed whenever you mow your lawn IT DOESN'T DIE!

In fact it is pretty crap as a nutrition source, as a result animals have evolved to eat alot of it to meet their daily requirements, pretty much all day in most cases. This in turn is why grass grows and spreads so quickly.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

I would have taught the male's penis would be the primary, with the scrotum being the secondary. Correct me if I'm wrong.

.....apparently it is the combination...that is the primary stimulant......at least that is what I'm told!!!!!!:pac::):D

.....secondary male characteristics include increased body and facial hair, baldness and increased muscle to fat ratios

.......eh.....em ......we have digressed!!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

I'd be more worried about PDN's wrath. Luckily we have resisted the urge to make planetary puns.

......good.....keep it up!!!!:D

Galvasean wrote: »

That is a good question J C. Luckily I have an answer for it too. The poison is an evolutionary adaptation to ward of animals that would eat their otherwise nutritious leaves (which is harmful to the plant). In turn some animals have evolved a resistance to such poisons. In turn the plants become a bit more poisonous and the animals a little bit more resistant and so on and so forth. It is often referred to as an 'evolutionary arms race', a great catalyst for evolution by means of natural selection.
As I've stated before the nutrition is not made by the plants for the animals (they are actually stealing it one could say), but for themselves. The leaves store nutrients which can be absorbed later in times of hardship (ie: winter when less energy can be absorbed directly from the sun). So in a sense a tree's leaves are a bit like a fridge system. You gather up as much food as you can while the food is plentiful and store it for later when food becomes scarce.

......there is no evidence of an 'arms race' with plants that are PERFECTLY NUTRITUOUS for the animals ......and not even a hint of poison or other nasties!!!!!!:D:pac::)

Galvasean

marco_polo wrote: »

I ask myself this everytime I click reply under your name. We must like teaching.

Don't you feel you have learnt so much about seed dispersal tonight?

Oddly I have enjoyed tonight's debate. It can be nice to think back to a subject you havent discussed in detail in some time only for all the information to come flooding (wahey!) back to you.
Might just pick up that DVD boxed set of the David Attenborough program The Life Of Plants. I'd highly recommend it to anyone interested, J C perhaps based on the amount of questions he asks on the topic.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

In the case of grass, sure it is a pain in the butt being eaten, but perhaps you may have noticed whenever you mow your lawn IT DOESN'T DIE!

.........as you have pointed out your lawn grass is 'generous to a fault .....and with NO reward.....something that Evolution DOESN'T predict.....but Creation DOES predict!!!!

...indeed your lawn grass will SURVIVE ....but may not seed....because it is a perennial.......BUT the annual members of the Grass Family.....like the Cereals are ALSO VERY TASTY and nutrituous when eaten in the vegetative stage....and they DO DIE....and fail to reproduce when they are eaten......so WHAT is in it for them?????

......there is nothing in it for the Perennial Grasses at all .....and there is nothing in it ....for the Annual Grasses at all at all

...............another reason why Evolution NEVER happened!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....apparently it is the combination...at least that is what I'm told!!!!!!:pac::):D

.......eh.....em ......we have digressed!!!!

Yes indeed. Variety being the spice of life and all. Let us agree and move on.

J C wrote: »

......good.....keep it up!!!!:D

Agreed.

J C wrote: »

......there is no evidence of an 'arms race' with plants that are PERFECTLY NUTRITUOUS for the animals ......and not even a hint of poison or other nasties!!!!!!:D:pac::)

Well as Marco pointed out the very fact that trees are so tall suggests an arms race. take giraffes as an example. They have evolved their long necks to reach the leaves of taller trees which have grown tall to avoid being eaten. Over may generations we end up with tall trees and long necked giraffes (if you look into the fossil record the ancestors of the modern day giraffe started out with shorter necks which evolved over time). Who knows perhaps in the future the trees will be even taller and the giraffes will have even longer necks.
Of course there is always more than one way with dealing with a problem. If an elephant can't reach the leaves he wants he can simply knock down the tree. Natural selection in this case favoring strong elephants who could do such things.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

what amazes me is that so many ATHEISTS are debating with me and so few Christians do so!!!!:D

Morbid curiosity for the former; quiet acknowledgment that your position is untenable for the latter. Not really that amazing when you think about it. :pac:

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.........as you have pointed out your lawn grass is 'generous to a fault .....and with NO reward.....something that Evolution DOESN'T predict.....but Creation DOES predict!!!!

I must have missed the passage where God says onto the Grassenites:

The Lord wrote:

"Be thou generous to a fault, and no reward shalt thou receive. So sayeth The Lord."

One of the more bizarre creation predictions...

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

.....so please explain what possible benefit a Cabbage (whose soft seed don't survive digestion.....or immature Grass (which is much more nutrituous than mature Grass) gets from being so tasty that they are eaten (often to bloating point) by animals????:D

I cannot concieve how such a supid plant could survive in the wild with soft seeds and no poisonous leaves.

Oh wait

The cultivated cabbage is derived from a leafy wild mustard plant, native to the Mediterranean region, where it is common along the seacoast. Also called sea cabbage and wild cabbage.

Brassica oleracea or Wild Mustard, is a species of Brassica native to coastal southern and western Europe, where its tolerance of salt and lime but intolerance of competition from other plants typically restricts its natural occurrence to limestone sea cliffs.

J C wrote: »

.........as you have pointed out your lawn grass is 'generous to a fault .....and with NO reward.....something that Evolution DOESN'T predict.....but Creation DOES predict!!!!

But there is a reward for growing quickly and in large amounts. Survival.

And it really lucked in after a tens of million years, a species evolved that though it looked nice. As a result often it gets a large area of space all to itself, hopefully lots of sunlight and if it is well kept, hardly any competition. The small price to pay is a bit of a trim now and again.

...indeed your lawn grass will SURVIVE ....but may not seed....because it is a perennial.......BUT the annual members of the Grass Family.....like the Cereals are ALSO VERY TASTY and nutrituous when eaten in the vegetative stage....and they DO DIE....and fail to reproduce when they are eaten......so WHAT is in it for them?????

Because they are grown with the intention of being processed and eaten by humans. Are wild cereals variants extinct or something?

Again they are not that easy to eat at all actually. Do you have a bowl of raw wheat grains hulls and all in the mornings or wheatabix? Would you eat a raw corn on the cob or do you cook it first?

Besides the domestic variants are another example of artifical selection and breeding for agriculture.

Another little problem with your theory. From the maize wiki article (with added gratuitous emoticons ):

It is unknown what precipitated its domestication, because the edible portion of the wild variety is too small and hard to obtain to be eaten directly, as each kernel is enclosed in a very hard bi-valve shell.:eek::pac::D;):)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.........as you have pointed out your lawn grass is 'generous to a fault .....and with NO reward.....something that Evolution DOESN'T predict.....but Creation DOES predict!!!!

2Scoops
I must have missed the passage where God says onto the Grassenites:


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lord
"Be thou generous to a fault, and no reward shalt thou receive. So sayeth The Lord."

2Scoops
One of the more bizarre creation predictions...

......God does indeed say something very similar to what you have just attributed to Him......in Gen 1:27-31

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
"Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.
Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

studiorat

J C wrote: »

"See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

Wolfsbane for example? Or the Jerusalem Cherry? Yew Trees? Oak?

Primary sexual stimiulant! the function of the scrotum is keep the testis at a slightly lower temperature than that of the rest of the body. Or would you rather believe god put it there for your own personal enjoyment JC? Or to show off perhaps like a peacock!

Pub07

Why are you all still feeding this JC troll?

MrPudding

He obviously is not a troll. If he were a troll he would get a warning from the mods. They are very strict about trolling, I know this cos I get warned all the time. They are strict about trolling and he is not getting warned about trolling, therefore he is not a troll. Simple really. Why is that kind of reasoning somehow vaguely familiar?

MrP