Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1431432434436437822

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Enough of your trolling, Mr P. Last warning :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    MrPudding wrote: »
    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

    Ah in fairness to the mods JC does get told to cop on a bit by the mods, the last time was when he was being particularly sexually vulgar (this is the Christian forum after all :pac:).

    I imagine that the mods take the line that anyone dumb enough to come onto this thread and start arguing with JC deserves all the nonsense they get :P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ah in fairness to the mods JC does get told to cop on a bit by the mods, the last time was when he was being particularly sexually vulgar (this is the Christian forum after all :pac:).

    I imagine that the mods take the line that anyone dumb enough to come onto this thread and start arguing with JC deserves all the nonsense they get :P
    I suppose it is a case of "never argue with an idiot....."

    MrP


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Pub07 wrote: »
    Why are you all still feeding this JC troll?

    Meh, keeps me out of the yore ma threads in AH :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    It's a very trollish form of communication JC uses IMO.

    Kinda reminds me of a particular nutter "Bob Morein" a scourge on some of the Usenet forums. The over use of capitals, the ellipsis', the emoticons are totally in your face. Not a very polite tone of "voice".


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    studiorat wrote: »
    It's a very trollish form of communication JC uses IMO.

    Kinda reminds me of a particular nutter "Bob Morein" a scourge on some of the Usenet forums. The over use of capitals, the ellipsis', the emoticons are totally in your face. Not a very polite tone of "voice".

    Pedantic point: J C doesn't use ellipses, he uses strings of full-stops. Ellipses always have precisely three full stops (except when the end of a sentence immediately precedes them, in which case they have four).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Pedantic point: J C doesn't use ellipses, he uses strings of full-stops. Ellipses always have precisely three full stops (except when the end of a sentence immediately precedes them, in which case they have four).

    Strings of ellipses then?

    12,997!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    studiorat wrote: »
    Strings of ellipses then?

    12,997!

    Nope, unless a combination of ellipses and full stops.

    Let's just call it another J Cian language mutation. I don't see this one altering the overall language in any way, though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Nope, unless a combination of ellipses and full stops.

    Let's just call it another J Cian language mutation. I don't see this one altering the overall language in any way, though.

    fair enough...

    13,000! yusssss!


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    studiorat wrote: »
    fair enough...

    13,000! yusssss!

    Damn you I had my eye on post #13,000 :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sex within Marriage is one of God's most beautiful gifts to Mankind.....
    We are DESIGNED by God to meet, fall in love, marry and have great fulfilling orgasmic SEX!!!!!

    MBEEP!!!:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    We are DESIGNED by God to meet, fall in love, marry and have great fulfilling orgasmic SEX!!!!!

    Just not necessarily in that order ....


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Just not necessarily in that order ....
    .....YES....preferably in that order!!!!!:pac::):D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The reason that the Evolutionists have begun to mumble amongst themselves for the past 20 or so posts is that Evolution was devastatingly invalidated during the following exchange back a few pages ago

    .......and here is the historic exchange when the 'deadly blow' was struck!!!!
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    .....so what 'testable models' and/or 'falsifiable predictions' show that Pondslime 'morphed' into Man over 'Zillions' of years???



    marco_polo
    Here are just a few

    1) A feature which leaps from one branch of the evolutionary tree to another
    2) A feature which exists solely for the benefit of another species, with no benefit whatsoever to the host species
    3) A complex organ for which no simpler versions ever existed.
    4) Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era
    5)Prove that mutations do not occur.
    6) Prove that if mutations do occur they are not passed down through the generations

    Stop wasting your time here, grab your shovel and get digging for that rabbit

    Originally Posted by J C
    1. The 'Evolutionary Tree' (and it's supposed branches) are figments of the Evolutionist's Imagination.....so any supposed 'leaping' between 'branches' is equally illusory!!!

    2. A feature which exists solely for the benefit of another species, with no benefit whatsoever to the host species SHOULD be eliminated by Natural Selection......and therfore is inconsistent with Evolution .....but it could still be present in a recent Creation!!!!.

    3. A complex organ for which no simpler versions ever existed.....is actually an example of Irreducible Complexity.......which rules out its spontaneous evolution on mathematical grounds.....and is PROOF of Intelligent Design!!!!

    4. The so-called Pre-Cambrian Era is a 'long ages' construct......and its rocks are identified by Evolutionists BECAUSE there are no fossils of animals, like Rabbits in them.......
    If I laid down some concrete yesterday.....and it had now set into the equivalent of sandstone rock.....
    ......even though there are no rabbits in it.....it ISN'T Pre-Cambrian in age or origin!!!!!!
    ......the absence of Rabbits in so-called Pre-Cambrian rock ISN'T evidence of absence of Rabbits at the time that these rocks were laid down.....and is based on Evolutionist Circular Reasoning......whereby rocks with Mammalian Fossils present will NOT be classified as Pre-Cambrian, in the first place!!!

    5. Mutations do occur.....and they are invariably information losing events!!!!
    .....in line with the predictions of Creation Science of a declining biosphere, due to the Fall......and NOT in accordance with 'upwards and onwards' Evolution!!!

    6. As I have said, mutations DO occur and the ones that are not corrected by the cellular correcting machinery ARE passed down the generations.......as degraded genetic information.......WHY do you think there is such concern nowadays about losing biological diversity in our ecosystems.....IF such diversity can be restored by muagenesis??????

    MBEEP......................................MBEEP!!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Why do JC's posts always have sexual references? I have met a few creationists in my time, and they wouldn't dream of speaking in this fashion. Or are they not 'real christians' as well, JC?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    J C wrote: »
    The reason that the Evolutionists have begun to mumble amongst themselves for the past 20 or so posts is that Evolution was devastatingly invalidated during the following exchange back a few pages ago

    .......and here is the historic exchange when the 'deadly blow' was struck!!!!

    Oh JC. :rolleyes:

    The only devestating blow that was struck last night was to any notion that you may have even a junior cert level knowledge of biology :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Why do JC's posts always have sexual references? I have met a few creationists in my time, and they wouldn't dream of speaking in this fashion. Or are they not 'real christians' as well, JC?

    ....and I don't ALWAYS make sexual references...but I have no problem discussing sex.......with anybody who asks about it.

    ......and why do you have such an apparent aversion to discussing the mechanism of Human reproduction established by God.....
    ....a God who BTW also doesn't blush when it comes to discussing sex in His Holy Word!!!

    .....the following selection which describe quite explicit sexual encounters may bring blushes to the cheeks of some people....but they show that the Word of God does not shrink from calling a spade a spade.....when it comes to sex:-
    Ge 19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
    Ge 19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
    Ge 30:16 And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son's mandrakes. And he lay with her that night.
    Ge 34:2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. {defiled...: Heb. humbled her}
    Ge 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:
    De 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: {force: or, take strong hold of}
    1Sa 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
    2Sa 11:4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.
    2Sa 11:5 And the woman conceived; so she sent and told David, and said, "I am with child."
    2Sa 12:24 And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him.
    2Sa 13:14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.
    Eze 23:8 Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her.
    (KJV)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    J C wrote: »
    .
    Ge 19:33
    Ge 19:35
    Ge 30:16
    Ge 34:2
    Ge 35:22
    De 22:22
    De 22:25
    1Sa 2:22
    2Sa 11:4
    2Sa 11:5
    2Sa 12:24
    2Sa 13:14
    Eze 23:8
    (KJV)

    Goodness, that's a fine collection of juicy quotes ya have there. Calling a spade a spade when it comes to incest too by the look of it.

    Hardly supprising that Lot's sons were prehistoric squid then.
    http://www.marshalls-art.com/images/ipaleo/paleopg21/Ammonites.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    studiorat wrote: »
    Goodness, that's a fine collection of juicy quotes ya have there. Calling a spade a spade when it comes to incest too by the look of it.
    .......indeed!!!
    studiorat wrote:
    Hardly supprising that Lot's sons were prehistoric squid then.
    http://www.marshalls-art.com/images/ipaleo/paleopg21/Ammonites.jpg
    .....the 'Ammonites' .......
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonite

    .....were actually Nautiluses....complete with striped coloured shells, by the looks of it!!!!!

    ....and they are still alive TODAY!!!!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus

    .....another case of a 'living fossil' no doubt!!!!:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    J C wrote: »
    .......indeed!!!

    .....the 'Ammonites' .......
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonite

    .....were actually Nautiluses....complete with striped coloured shells, by the looks of it!!!!!

    ....and they are still alive TODAY!!!!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus

    .....another case of a 'living fossil' no doubt!!!!:D

    nooooo! they're ammonites, an artist's impression, but ammonites none the less! they're extinct now, because of their wickedness no doubt!

    the only living fossils 'round these days are creationists!
    In medieval Europe, fossilised ammonites were thought to be petrified snakes, and were called "snakestones" or, more commonly in medieval England, "serpentstones". They were taken to be evidence for the actions of saints such as St Hilda and St Patrick.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    studiorat wrote: »
    nooooo! they're ammonites, an artist's impression, but ammonites none the less! they're extinct now, because of their wickedness no doubt!
    ......when is a Nautilus not a Nautilus?

    .........when it is FOSSILISED......it is called an 'Ammonite' by any Evolutionist who sees it!!!!

    .....interestingly you may have a point about the wickedness of the REAL Ammonite PEOPLE......who were the epitomy of evil in Old Testament Times.....
    ......the following passages of Scripture give a good description of the Ammonites:-
    De 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:
    1Sa 11:1 ¶ Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.
    1Sa 11:2 And Nahash the Ammonite answered them, On this condition will I make a covenant with you, that I may thrust out all your right eyes, and lay it for a reproach upon all Israel.
    Ne 2:10 When Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, heard of it, it grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel.
    Ne 13:1 ¶ On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever


    wrote:
    In medieval Europe, fossilised ammonites were thought to be petrified snakes, and were called "snakestones" or, more commonly in medieval England, "serpentstones". They were taken to be evidence for the actions of saints such as St Hilda and St Patrick.
    ......and today the Evolutionists are similarly all mixed up!!!!!

    .....they call a fossilised Nautilus.....an Ammonite......and they take its fossilisation to be evidence of extinction......
    .....EVEN THOUGH the Nautilus can be found happily swimming in your local ocean!!!!! :pac::):D

    Anyway, now that Evolution has been shown to be completely invalid......and the Evolutionists have 'run out of steam'.......we can presumably move on to discuss the prophecy dimension of this thread.....and here is a good short account of the 'end times' to which all unfulfilled Biblical prophecies relate:-
    http://www.verafay.com/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Nautilis' and Ammonites are actually different. Not why I mentioned them though.
    I'm suprised you've only just got the Ammonite/Incest pun just now though. I thought you'd have spotted that one earlier.
    J C wrote: »

    Anyway, now that Evolution has been shown to be completely invalid......and the Evolutionists have 'run out of steam'.......we can presumably move on to discuss the prophecy dimension of this thread.....and here is a good short account of the 'end times' to which all unfulfilled Biblical prophecies relate:-
    http://www.verafay.com/

    It would seem the "evolutionists" as you like to call them have run out of steam alright. Mainly because of the absolutely irritating and tiring issue of trying to decipher the unique style of your posts. Though don't for a second think that anyone actually has been convinced by you and your mystic beliefs.:pac:

    As for prophecy, well I knew this was coming up oddly enough. However, I'll pass for the moment JC. 'Cause I have a strange feeling this will be another pop-theological merry-go-round. :rolleyes:

    As your redeemer would say however, "I'll be back!";):):eek:

    And I'll be watching you like Santa Claus too!
    :cool:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    Anyway, now that Evolution has been shown to be completely invalid......and the Evolutionists have 'run out of steam'.......

    We're still here J C, but one has priorities. Besides, you haven't made any "substantive points" (as you would often say) in quite a number of pages. But since you seem to be under the delusion that you've scored some points, I'll return to some stuff you've still failed on.

    You still haven't been able to tell me why we contain a random selection of redundant and non-redundant parts other than to say "any designed system should have both", which is nonsense since many will have none at all (if they're easy to access, easy to repair or merely cheap to produce e.g. cars and watches) whilst others will be fully redundant in terms of core systems (if they're inaccessible, difficult to repair or prohibitively expensive e.g. spacecraft).

    An organism is (barring modern medicine) a non-repairable system that, if designed, needs to be built to have a lifespan of about 40 years in highly variable and often very hostile conditions. Anyone who would build such a system with backups in some critical areas (lungs, kidneys, cerebral hemispheres, immunity, non-stereo vision and hearing) but not in others (heart, digestive system, sight cascade, clotting cascade) is rubbish at basic design.

    You've also contradicted yourself on this issue. You've claimed that critical systems are evidence of design, but when it is pointed out that this equates to "imperfect design", suddenly you claim that the loss of redundancy is a result of "the fall". Odd then that animals have also been afflicted (do we now believe that animals were punished for Adam's sin?). Odder still that what you are describing in the second case is actually indiscernible from evolution.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    studiorat wrote: »
    Nautilis' and Ammonites are actually different.
    .....the 'Ammonite' .......
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonite

    .....and the 'Nautilus'....are IDENTICAL....complete with the striped coloured shells!!!!!

    ....and they are still alive TODAY!!!!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus

    studiorat wrote: »
    I'm suprised you've only just got the Ammonite/Incest pun just now though.
    (Originally Posted by studiorat
    nooooo! they're ammonites, an artist's impression, but ammonites none the less! they're extinct now, because of their wickedness no doubt!)
    ....so are the Atheists now reduced to claiming that the Ammonites are SPIRITUALLY different from the Nautiluses?????

    .....they certainly aren't PHYSICALLY different!!!!!:D

    MBEEP!!!:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    J C wrote: »
    .....the 'Ammonite' .......
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonite

    .....and the 'Nautilus'....are IDENTICAL....complete with the striped coloured shells!!!!!

    ....and they are still alive TODAY!!!!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus

    Will you ever read you own links!
    A primary difference between ammonites and nautiloids is that the siphuncle of ammonites (excepting Clymeniina) runs along the ventral periphery of the septa and camerae (i.e., the inner surface of the outer axis of the shell), while the siphuncle of nautiloids runs more or less through the center of the septa and camerae.
    Another clue to them being different is that:
    Nautilus pompilius is the largest species in the genus. One form from western Australia may reach 26.8 cm in diameter. However, most other nautilus species never exceed 20 cm. Nautilus macromphalus is the smallest species, usually measuring only 16 cm
    Few of the ammonites occurring in the lower and middle part of the Jurassic period reach a size exceeding 23 centimetres (9 inches) in diameter. Much larger forms are found in the later rocks of the upper part of the Jurassic and the lower part of the Cretaceous, such as Titanites from the Portland Stone of Jurassic of southern England, which is often 53 centimetres (2 feet) in diameter, and Parapuzosia seppenradensis of the Cretaceous period of Germany, which is one of the largest known ammonites, sometimes reaching 2 metres (6.5 feet) in diameter. The largest documented North American ammonite is Parapuzosia bradyi from the Cretaceous with specimens measuring 137 centimetres (4.5 feet) in diameter, although a new British Columbian specimen, if authentic, would appear to trump even the European champion.

    So we have the fact that the siphuncle is in a different position in nautiluses than the ammonites and that while nautiluses dont get bigger than about 10 1/2 inches, ammonites of over 6 feet in diameter have been found!

    By what definition of IDENTICAL are these things actually identical?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding



    By what definition of IDENTICAL are these things actually identical?
    Presumably the same definition by which the earth is 6000 to 10000 years old.

    MrP


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo



    By what definition of IDENTICAL are these things actually identical?

    IDENTICAL =
    Superficial similiarities + Superficial mind


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    JC, JC, JC!

    Why do I bother, really...

    Please look at the link and you might get it...

    Ammonites

    Now, incest = Ammonites looking like Ammonites (geddit?)

    I'd really like to get in to arguing prophesy with you but there's no point, your only argument is going to be "well it hasn't happened yet!" Hows that for a prophesy?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    We're still here J C, but one has priorities. Besides, you haven't made any "substantive points" (as you would often say) in quite a number of pages.
    ....... I think the following exchange FALSIFYING all six 'falsifiable predictions' about Evolution are indeed 'substantive points'.....that are so substantive that they SCIENTIFICALLY INVALIDATE the Theory!!!!:D
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    .....so what 'testable models' and/or 'falsifiable predictions' show that Pondslime 'morphed' into Man over 'Zillions' of years???


    marco_polo
    Here are just a few

    1) A feature which leaps from one branch of the evolutionary tree to another
    2) A feature which exists solely for the benefit of another species, with no benefit whatsoever to the host species
    3) A complex organ for which no simpler versions ever existed.
    4) Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era
    5)Prove that mutations do not occur.
    6) Prove that if mutations do occur they are not passed down through the generations

    Stop wasting your time here, grab your shovel and get digging for that rabbit

    Originally Posted by J C
    1. The 'Evolutionary Tree' (and it's supposed branches) are figments of the Evolutionist's Imagination.....so any supposed 'leaping' between 'branches' is equally illusory!!!

    2. A feature which exists solely for the benefit of another species, with no benefit whatsoever to the host species SHOULD be eliminated by Natural Selection......and therfore is inconsistent with Evolution .....but it could still be present in a recent Creation!!!!.

    3. A complex organ for which no simpler versions ever existed.....is actually an example of Irreducible Complexity.......which rules out its spontaneous evolution on mathematical grounds.....and is PROOF of Intelligent Design!!!!

    4. The so-called Pre-Cambrian Era is a 'long ages' construct......and its rocks are identified by Evolutionists BECAUSE there are no fossils of animals, like Rabbits in them.......
    If I laid down some concrete yesterday.....and it had now set into the equivalent of sandstone rock.....
    ......even though there are no rabbits in it.....it ISN'T Pre-Cambrian in age or origin!!!!!!
    ......the absence of Rabbits in so-called Pre-Cambrian rock ISN'T evidence of absence of Rabbits at the time that these rocks were laid down.....and is based on Evolutionist Circular Reasoning......whereby rocks with Mammalian Fossils present will NOT be classified as Pre-Cambrian, in the first place!!!

    5. Mutations do occur.....and they are invariably information losing events!!!!
    .....in line with the predictions of Creation Science of a declining biosphere, due to the Fall......and NOT in accordance with 'upwards and onwards' Evolution!!!

    6. As I have said, mutations DO occur and the ones that are not corrected by the cellular correcting machinery ARE passed down the generations.......as degraded genetic information.......WHY do you think there is such concern nowadays about losing biological diversity in our ecosystems.....IF such diversity can be restored by muagenesis??????

    wrote:
    AtomicHorror
    You still haven't been able to tell me why we contain a random selection of redundant and non-redundant parts other than to say "any designed system should have both", which is nonsense since many will have none at all (if they're easy to access, easy to repair or merely cheap to produce e.g. cars and watches) whilst others will be fully redundant in terms of core systems (if they're inaccessible, difficult to repair or prohibitively expensive e.g. spacecraft).
    .....ALL living systems have massive levels of 'redundancy' given their excellent abilities for self-healing....and the Challenger Disaster proves that no matter what 'backup/redundancy' is built into spacecraft they can still be destroyed (just like living creatures) by the forces released at the Fall!!!!
    wrote:
    AtomicHorror
    An organism is (barring modern medicine) a non-repairable system that, if designed, needs to be built to have a lifespan of about 40 years in highly variable and often very hostile conditions. Anyone who would build such a system with backups in some critical areas (lungs, kidneys, cerebral hemispheres, immunity, non-stereo vision and hearing) but not in others (heart, digestive system, sight cascade, clotting cascade) is rubbish at basic design.
    ......the Human 'Design Life' is actually 70 years....and the COMBINATION of 'backup' systems AND self-healing provides MASSIVE levels of 'redundancy' for all living creatures!!!:D


    wrote:
    AtomicHorror
    You've also contradicted yourself on this issue. You've claimed that critical systems are evidence of design, but when it is pointed out that this equates to "imperfect design", suddenly you claim that the loss of redundancy is a result of "the fall". Odd then that animals have also been afflicted (do we now believe that animals were punished for Adam's sin?). Odder still that what you are describing in the second case is actually indiscernible from evolution.
    .....the NEED for redundancy is a result of the Fall......Human Beings were perfect....and immortal before the Fall!!!:D

    ....and the ENTIRE Universe 'Fell' when Adam 'Fell'.....such is the central importance of Mankind to the whole Creation Proiject!!!!:D


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    ....and the ENTIRE Universe 'Fell' when Adam 'Fell'.....such is the central importance of Mankind to the whole Creation Proiject!
    Sounds like really unintelligent design to me.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement