The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Sounds like really unintelligent design to me.

In IT you would get fired for a design flaw like that. Bit of a single point of failure. Lets see, I am going to create a massive universe, bigger than anyone, other than myself of course, can imagine. It is going to be perfect in every way. Then, in a tiny tiny infinitesimally small section of it I will create life. Everything shall will be perfect and will last forever. There will be no entropy, for it will be perfect, unless of course someone eats an apple from that tree…

MrP

oeb

MrPudding wrote: »

In IT you would get fired for a design flaw like that. Bit of a single point of failure. Lets see, I am going to create a massive universe, bigger than anyone, other than myself of course, can imagine. It is going to be perfect in every way. Then, in a tiny tiny infinitesimally small section of it I will create life. Everything shall will be perfect and will last forever. There will be no entropy, for it will be perfect, unless of course someone eats an apple from that tree…

MrP

How many times to we have to tell people. Validate your input!

function eat(food) {
if((food.size > mouth.size) || (food.tastesLikeCrap == true) || (food.type == MAGICAPPLE)) {
errorLog->add('Can't eat this');
return false;
}
.....
}

Beginners mistake, should have discovered it before deployment by the beta testers.

Either way, he has had 6000-10000 years to patch it. That's why we don't see any evidence of god, he has been fired for poor programming skills.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....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!!!!

The challenger disaster was as a result of a design flaw.

J C wrote: »

......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

The 40 years to which I was referring is a speculative estimate of our average life span without any medical science whatsoever. The combination of backup systems/self healing what? Are curiously inconsistent?

J C wrote: »

.....the NEED for redundancy is a result of the Fall......Human Beings were perfect....and immortal before the Fall!!!:D

You're not being clear. All organic systems were irreducibly complex before the fall? Or they developed such flaws because of the fall? Redundancy developed after the fall? By evolution or by a second design? You really need to get your story straight JC. Seems you can change it to fit the evidence.

robindch

J C wrote: »

.....ALL living systems have massive levels of 'redundancy' given their excellent abilities for self-healing....

Where's your backup brain?

J C wrote: »

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!

Are you really saying that the low temperature inflexibility of rubber is a "force released by the fall"?

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Where's your backup brain?

Steady on. The existence of his primary brain, let alone a backup one, is not even certain yet.

MrP

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

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

Brilliant, you have just defined yourself out of having evidence for Biblical creation.

If the Fall changed everything then no information is left from before the Fall. So you can't say anything about the state of the universe from before the Fall.

Sometimes you out do yourself JC

AtomicHorror

J C, answer me this question. Do you contend that the following happened?

1. Creation of life with no redundancies in a perfect universe
2. The fall, thus introducing perfect beings into an imperfect universe
3. The emergence of redundancy in response to the imperfect universe

Galvasean

MrPudding wrote: »

In IT you would get fired for a design flaw like that. Bit of a single point of failure. Lets see, I am going to create a massive universe, bigger than anyone, other than myself of course, can imagine. It is going to be perfect in every way. Then, in a tiny tiny infinitesimally small section of it I will create life. Everything shall will be perfect and will last forever. There will be no entropy, for it will be perfect, unless of course someone eats an apple from that tree…

MrP

Achilles would be jealous.

HouseHippo

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

And who aid I was an athiest

I may not be an idiot but that does not mean I am an athiest

Making assumtions

Very unchristian of you.

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

Brilliant, you have just defined yourself out of having evidence for Biblical creation.

If the Fall changed everything then no information is left from before the Fall. So you can't say anything about the state of the universe from before the Fall.

Sometimes you out do yourself JC

JC didn't say everything. He said the whole universe.
Which leaves at least the Creator outside of the changed realm, and also creatures like angels and demons.

And yes, it is hard to say anything scientifically about the state of the world before the Flood, let alone before the Fall.

But if we use the scientiifc requirement of indipendent reproducability, you cannot even say anything scientifically about Queen Maeve, or about me typing in this message.

Fanny Cradock

HouseHippo wrote: »

And who aid I was an athiest

I may not be an idiot but that does not mean I am an athiest

Making assumtions

Very unchristian of you.

Nobody. And that's why I'm unsure if your post has a point other than having a little dig at JC. This is something that has been going on over the last couple of pages.

JC wrote:

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

Well, as I see it, there are two reasons for this, JC.

1) It's a non-issue for most Christians. They either accept that evolutionary theory is completable with their faith or they just don't care either way.

2) After 13,000 + posts and nearly 1,000 pages it's all been said before.

J C

wrote:

Mark Hamill
Will you ever read you own links!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia article on Ammonites
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.

.....MINOR variations within the original Nautiloid Kind!!!:D

wrote:

Mark Hamill
Another clue to them being different is that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia article on Nautilus
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia article on Ammonites
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 .......

The position of the siphuncle is yet another MINOR phenotype variation within the Nautiloid Kind....and it is in an IDENTICAL position in the fossil Clymeniina....AND the living Nautilus!!!:D

wrote:

Mark Hamill
...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?

.....the same way small ponies and large draught horses are an IDENTICAL Species!!!!!!

AtomicHorror

I don't want to spam J C, but please don't ignore my questions. For your own good. It makes it look like you're not able.

oeb

J C wrote: »

.....the same way small ponies and large draught horses are an IDENTICAL Species!!!!!!

I assume of course that you are refering to the likes of a Shetland pony Vs a large draft horse here? Or are you just saying that baby Nautilus just don't grow up any more?

I really do hope it is the former, but if it is, you are half correct.

A Shetland pony and a draft horse do indeed share a species (Equus caballus (horse)) but they are separate breeds (or infrasubspecific entities). This normally means that they can breed, and that they are "Homogeneous" (being similar throughout).

The Ammonite and the Natilus however are not the same species (And are certainly not separate breeds of the same species). They share the same Phylum.

Calling them the same species is much like calling humans and apes the same species, or crabs and spiders. While superficially similar (often even in body construction and biological makeup) , they are most certainly different species.

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

.....the same way small ponies and large draught horses are an IDENTICAL Species!!!!!!

You said nothing about species, you just claimed that ammonites and nautiluses where identical. Now oeb has explained how nautiluses and ammonites come from different phylums (i dont think they could even interbreed).

J C wrote: »

......are you Ken Ham's sick little brother perhaps????

Mark Ham...ill.......

.......get it????:pac::):D:p

Mark Hamill is my full name, another insult like that J C and I will report you.

oeb

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You said nothing about species, you just claimed that ammonites and nautiluses where identical. Now oeb has explained how nautiluses and ammonites come from different phylums (i dont think they could even interbreed).

Well, even if they lived at the same time it is unlikely. An Ammonite is closer to an octupus then to a nautilus.

It's also worth mentioning that they share a class too (before JC brings it up), but then again, so do humans and mice.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The challenger disaster was as a result of a design flaw.

......which was ultimately a result of Human error....which is ultimately a result of the Fall.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The 40 years to which I was referring is a speculative estimate of our average life span without any medical science whatsoever. The combination of backup systems/self healing what? Are curiously inconsistent?

......sufficient good food and basic hygiene will largely eliminate infant mortality.....which will get us to our average 'Design Life Span' of 70 years......modern Medicine may push us on another 5-10 years further!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You're not being clear. All organic systems were irreducibly complex before the fall? Or they developed such flaws because of the fall? Redundancy developed after the fall? By evolution or by a second design? You really need to get your story straight JC. Seems you can change it to fit the evidence.

.........organic systems were irreducibly complex BOTH before and after the Fall......with massive levels of 'redundancy' built in at Creation to cope with all future 'shocks'......including the Fall.
The self-repairing/healing aspect of this 'redundancy' was probably automatically switched on due to the trauma surrounding the Fall....
.....the process was probably something akin to, for example, how our skin healing/repair mechanisms are automatically switched when our skin is damaged by physical trauma!!!!:D

J C

robindch wrote: »

Where's your backup brain?Are you really saying that the low temperature inflexibility of rubber is a "force released by the fall"?

......I get along fine with the brain I have got......
......do you regret not having a 'backup' brain to improve your logic skills????!!!!

.....and the Space shuttle blew up due to a design fault......which was ultimately a result of Human error....which is ultimately a result of the Fall.

J C

HouseHippo wrote: »

I may not be an idiot but that does not mean I am an athiest.

.....I hope you are not suggesting that you must be an idiot to be an Atheist??????

.....I'll have you know that ALL of my Atheist friends are very intelligent people!!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by JC
......what amazes me is that so many ATHEISTS are debating with me and so few Christians do so!!!!

Fanny Cradock

Well, as I see it, there are two reasons for this, JC.

1) It's a non-issue for most Christians. They either accept that evolutionary theory is completable with their faith or they just don't care either way.

2) After 13,000 + posts and nearly 1,000 pages it's all been said before.

.......the Christians have been very reticent about discussing Creation since the very start of the Thread....so the '13,000+ posts' DOESN'T explain their current reticence!!!!

It is actually a very good question why the Atheists have defended their beliefs, that God doesn't exist and Evolution happened, very vigorously.....while NEITHER issue seems to be important for practically all of the Christians on this thread.

Could I point out that although the thread is focussed on the Evolution/Creation issue, it has covered the whole anti-God gamut of the Materialistic Atheistic worldview.....and the Christians were noticably unable or unwilling to give any reasons for their faith in Jesus Christ....
.......and even when they ventured forth with some timid opinion, they rarely had any 'come back' to the counter-arguments of the Materialists!!!!!

......not so, with the few Bible-believing Christians, on this thread...... who have 'held their own' ....and a good bit more ....with the Atheists.

This thread also raises another interesting question......
.......either myself AND the Materialists are wrong ......and the Evolution / Creation issue isn't critically important......
.......or the Christians who believe it to be a 'non-issue' are badly mistaken.

As the Christians have provided NO cogent reasons on this thread as to WHY Evolution / Creation is a 'non-issue' one can only conclude that 13,000+ posts indicates that it is a VITALLY IMPORTANT issue that goes to the very heart of what it means to be a Christian or an Atheist.

J C

oeb wrote: »

I assume of course that you are refering to the likes of a Shetland pony Vs a large draft horse here? Or are you just saying that baby Nautilus just don't grow up any more?

I really do hope it is the former, but if it is, you are half correct.

A Shetland pony and a draft horse do indeed share a species (Equus caballus (horse)) but they are separate breeds (or infrasubspecific entities). This normally means that they can breed, and that they are "Homogeneous" (being similar throughout).

The Ammonite and the Natilus however are not the same species (And are certainly not separate breeds of the same species). They share the same Phylum.

Calling them the same species is much like calling humans and apes the same species, or crabs and spiders. While superficially similar (often even in body construction and biological makeup) , they are most certainly different species.

......the 'Ammonite' and the 'Nautilus' are part of the same Created Kind......there are minor variations between them.....and we will never definitively know whether they could interbreed.......but their very close phenotypes would indicate that they probably could.....and they are therefore either the same species or very closely related species!!!!!

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You said nothing about species, you just claimed that ammonites and nautiluses where identical. Now oeb has explained how nautiluses and ammonites come from different phylums (i dont think they could even interbreed).

Nautiluses and Ammonites not only share the SAME phylum (Mollusca)......they ALSO share the SAME class (Cephalopoda)....... the only debate is whether they could interbreed and therefore are the SAME species.....or whether they may have speciated sufficiently to prevent interbreeding......either way, they are members of the SAME Created Kind!!!!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Mark Hamill is my full name, another insult like that J C and I will report you.

.....my sincere apologies.....I thought you were using a nom de plume.....with a pun on Ken Ham!!!!:)

oeb

J C wrote: »

Nautiluses and Ammonites not only share the SAME phylum (Mollusca)......they ALSO share the SAME class (Cephalopoda)....... the only debate is whether they could interbreed and therefore are the SAME species.....or whetther they may have speciated sufficiently to prevent interbreeding......either way, they are members of the SAME Created Kind!!!!

Try and keep up.

Humans and chimpanzees also share the same phylum (Chordata) and class(Mammalia). Are they the same species? Can they interbreed?

Humans and house cats share the same phylum (Chordata) and class (Mammalia). Are they the same species? Can they interbreed?

J C

oeb wrote: »

Try and keep up.

Humans and chimpanzees also share the same phylum (Chordata) and class(Mammalia). Are they the same species? Can they interbreed?

Humans and house cats share the same phylum (Chordata) and class (Mammalia). Are they the same species? Can they interbreed?

........BUT Lions and Tigers ALSO share the same phylum (Chordata) and class (Mammalia)......and they CAN interbreed!!!!!!!:D

.....and certain varieties of Ammonite are IDENTICAL to the modern Nautilus!!!!

......or are Evolutionists so hopeless at recognising similarities that they couldn't recognise somebody whom they know in a Police Identity Parade!!!!!

oeb

J C wrote: »

........BUT Lions and Tigers ALSO share the same phylum (Chordata) and class(Mammalia)......and they CAN interbreed!!!!!!!:D

.....and certain varieties of Ammonite are IDENTICAL to the modern Nautilus!!!!

......or are Evolutionists so hopeless at recognising similarities that they couldn't recognise somebody in a Police Identity Parade!!!!!

They also share the same family, and the same genus. Lions and tigers are much much closer on the evolutionary 'tree' than that.


EDIT:
Just to clarify a bit here, because we both have been going off on a bit of a tangent.
Ammonite is not a species anyway, it is a group. There were many different species of Ammonite (Much like lions and tigers are species of great cat) The natillus (and the octupus, and the squid) are DECENDANTS from DIFFERENT ammonite species.

J C

oeb wrote: »

They also share the same family, and the same genus. Lions and tigers are much much closer on the evolutionary 'tree' than that.


EDIT:
Just to clarify a bit here, because we both have been going off on a bit of a tangent.
Ammonite is not a species anyway, it is a group. There were many different species of Ammonite (Much like lions and tigers are species of great cat) The natillus (and the octupus, and the squid) are DECENDANTS from DIFFERENT ammonite species.

......YES the Nautilus, Octopus and Squid are all speciated descendants of the Ammonite Kind!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

oeb

J C wrote: »

......YES the Nautilus, Octopus and Squid are all speciated descendants of the Ammonite Kind!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

That only verifies evolution! All those species are more advanced than Ammonites (which are of course extinct)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

As the Christians have provided NO cogent reasons on this thread as to WHY Evolution / Creation is a 'non-issue' one can only conclude that 13,000+ posts indicates that it is a VITALLY IMPORTANT issue that goes to the very heart of what it means to be a Christian or an Atheist.

Not really when you consider that it's mostly 13,000 posts of fluff. For example, not a single instance of creation science has been presented thus far in all 13,000 of the posts! Volume is not a good predictor of content, in this case. :pac:

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

JC didn't say everything. He said the whole universe.
Which leaves at least the Creator outside of the changed realm, and also creatures like angels and demons.

By everything I obviously meant everything inside the uinverse

God and the angels and demons and all other supernatural things that are supposed to exist some where else are undetectable anyway, so they are irrelevant.

The point is that under JC's own definition there is no physical evidence to confirm Biblical creation. Which puts most Creationists out of ... er ... a "job" (if one could call it a job)

santing wrote: »

But if we use the scientiifc requirement of indipendent reproducability, you cannot even say anything scientifically about Queen Maeve, or about me typing in this message.

Don't be silly, of course you can.

robindch

2Scoops wrote: »

Volume is not a good predictor of content

But it's an excellent indicator of quality. Or in this case, the lack of it.

Imagine it -- two years, fifty-one weeks in, and our creationist colleagues have yet to produce so much as a single article either in a real journal or by a real scientist, let alone both.

It must be galling to the vanishingly small proportion of creationists who are aware that scientific journals exist, and the even tinier number who have ever opened one.