The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Fanny Cradock

J C wrote: »

...I've chosen my quotes carefully to be directly relevant within this thread.....and I have been very open-minded about it.....I have ONLY quoted Evolutionists...and not fellow Creationists!!!

That's fair enough, JC. It's just that there are so many quotes that they tends to swallow any point you make. I would suggest the following rule of thumb: a little and not so often.

Cheers.

O.K., round 13,323. Fight!

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

.....any ideas on WHY Punctuated equilibria should have been noncontroversial.....but it wasn't????

Because the very essence of proper science is debate and controversy. And the fact that such controversy exists does little to support your whinging about a big bad science conspiracy.

.....hint......the evidence for "Punctuated Equilibria" is uncomfortably close to the evidence for "Created Equilbria"....... it will be on your next Creation Science Test Paper.....so you had better study up.....and go for straight 'A's!!!!!
:pac::):D

A quick search for "Created Equilbria" turned up sweet FA so not uncomfortable at all really.

If I just hand in a blank page that would be sufficent for an A? Sure it probably be in the top 5 greatest creationist research papers of all time.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....I said that the Brachiosaurus and the Giraffe were both MAMMALS.....I didn't say that they were the same Created Kind!!!

Ah yes, because that would make sense..

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

......I thought you would like to hear what leading Evolutionists have to say about Evolution!!!!:D

I would much prefer to read you own 'humble' opinions on the whatever the creators intentions were JC.

As for the leading evolutionists, I also like to read what they have to say but I much prefer them in their original unedited form thanks all the same.

2Scoops

marco_polo wrote: »

If I just hand in a blank page that would be sufficent for an A? Sure it probably be in the top 5 greatest creationist research papers of all time.

The top 1, since nothing else exists.

Except for the super-secret stuff J C does in his spare time, while not working at his conventional science occupation. If only he'd show it to us, so we could see the creation science, believe and be saved. But, apparently, by keeping this important data under warps, he doesn't seem to want to save anyone except himself.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So you're telling me that the creator deliberately built breaking points into humans- fatal flaws that prevent many humans from living their full lives- just as a signature? That the creator took action to put human lives at risk?



But these also fail due to design rather than environment. Why choose a coding system that allows critical failures? If the Creator wished, as you suggest, to show us that we were Created, why not build us entirely irreducibly complex but simply make our genetic material non-mutable or even more resistant to mutation? Why the hodge-podge mix of redundancy and criticality without evidence of prioritising?



Fine and dandy, but that has little to do with our debate. You're still stuck with a choice, but it seems you're leaning towards the fallible or negligent God.

.....our lifespan is set by Divine Writ as (an average of) 70 years....and death is an ever-present reality in our fallen World.

God has shown that He is capable of great love for those who love Him....and great wrath for those who hate Him.

Our current bodies are 'fit for purpose' for our current (average) lifespan.....and the challenge facing each one of us is to NOT to repeat the mistakes of Lucifer and Adam......and try God's patience by deliberately challenging His ultimate authority.....
.....He has told us that we can be saved....but we must also endure death.

...that's good enough for me.....quite frankly I don't wish to make a bad situation worse......

......if I must endure physical death....I want to avoid eternal death!!!!:)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

Our current bodies are 'fit for purpose' for our current (average) lifespan.....

Not at all, since most deaths result from age-related diseases or events and not just some imagined 'exhausted life force.'

And didn't it used to average at several hundred years, like those folks in the Bible?

marco_polo

2Scoops wrote: »

And didn't it used to average at several hundred years, like those folks in the Bible?

Blah blah .... Adam ....blah blah ...perfect ..blah blah .... fall ..... blah blah .....redundancy .. mutations ....

Hope I haven't left anything out

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....our lifespan is set by Divine Writ as (an average of) 70 years....and death is an ever-present reality in our fallen World.

God has shown that He is capable of great love for those who love Him....and great wrath for those who hate Him.

Our current bodies are 'fit for purpose' for our current (average) lifespan.....

So, God is unconcerned with the survival time of individuals and is essentially interested in the average survival rate of all humans? He has thus taken an action that ensures some people die very early. He's not interested in the standard deviation of that set either, as His Design Decisions mean that some die before birth, in childhood, in their prime, in their middle ages. Why design such a wide scatter into the system, that some live to 100 while others never live at all? It's possible for the average to remain the same with a tighter standard deviation. For (extreme) example if everyone lived to 70 without fail (excluding death caused by the post-fall environment) and died at that age without fail, the average would still be in line with Divine Writ but everyone would get a chance to live fully and be Saved.

If this is science, there must be a rational explanation. And I assume we can test this also? Can you suggest how?

Can you suggest how we test the definition of "kinds"?

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Because the very essence of proper science is debate and controversy. And the fact that such controversy exists does little to support your whinging about a big bad science conspiracy.

....not so much a conspiracy.....as open hostility to Creation Science....as AtomicHorror has confirmed in the folowing quote:-

AtomicHorror wrote:

Your fears (J C) of persecution may well be founded in reality (though I have never called for any of the measures you describe), so your desire for anonymity is perhaps understandable.

marco_polo wrote: »

A quick search for "Created Equilbria" turned up sweet FA so not uncomfortable at all really.

....by 'Created Equilibria' I meant that the evidence for so-called 'Punctuated Equilibria' is so close to the evidence for Creation (instantaneous and perfect appearance of widely different organisms with no intermediates, as well as instantaneous speciation).....that most Evolutionists recoil in 'religious' horror at the thought of it!!!!

In addition Darwinian Evolution DEMANDS that gradualism be displayed in the Fossil Record :-
"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." Origin of Species (1859) p.280

Unfortunately for Darwin ... and Darwinists ... the fossil record has now been exhaustively examined....and it STILL does not reveal any 'finely graduated organic chain'... and the 'Punctuated' Evolutionists who highlight this fatal weakness in Darwinism are certainly not thanked by Darwinists for doing so !!!!:pac::):D

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Because the very essence of proper science is debate and controversy.

....so does this ALSO mean that the very essence of Science teaching is to teach all of the controversies that arise in Science...
.....but out of deference to the sensitivities of Darwinists and their defunct 'theory' to not mention the controversy about evolution???

....and use the full force of law to punish any teacher who has the temerity to even suggest that evolution might just be a 'load of cobblers'....with apologies in advance to all cobblers!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Galvasean

I suppose if a teacher suggested gravity wasn't real they would receive equal, if not greater hostility and rightly so.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....so does this ALSO mean that the very essence of Science teaching is to teach all of the controversies that arise in Science...
.....but out of deference to the sensitivities of Darwinists and their defunct 'theory' to not mention the controversy about evolution???

Creationists don't follow the scientific method and are thus not a part of the scientific community. This means that there's no scientific controversy to teach. However, if we did include creation researchers as a part of the scientific community, we would still not be obliged to "teach the controversy" as it would still represent a minority movement. We are not obliged to teach every small-scale would-be revolution that occurs within the community, as this would be very time consuming and confusing for students who face a challenge in merely assimilating the consensus. More to the point, the proponents of such minority revolutions, although they consider themselves correct, rarely call for their debate to move into the public arena, let alone into schools because they understand and accept how the scientific community works- by adversarial debate alone.

It's a moot point, since neither you nor your creationist friends are able to tell me how we define creation, define kinds, or devise a test for either. Ergo, not science.

J C wrote: »

....and use the full force of law to punish any teacher who has the temerity to even suggest that evolution might just be a 'load of cobblers'....with apologies in advance to all cobblers!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Again, because it is consensus, thus it is on the curriculum. It is not defiance of the consensus but misrepresentation of the curriculum as set by the state that is the issue in enforcement.

AtomicHorror

So J C, to recap:

1. You have maintained that the mix of critical systems and redundant systems in humans is a deliberate design decision by the Creator. Implying disinterest on His part in individual human life spans, imperfect knowledge of the post-Fall environment, or negligence on His part. Or a combination of said factors.

2. You claim that "kinds" is a non-testable concept and thus not a part of science.

3. You are unable to give a scientific description of creation, nor suggest a means to test it. Thus it is not a part of science.

Fanny Cradock

marco_polo wrote: »

Blah blah .... Adam ....blah blah ...perfect ..blah blah .... fall ..... blah blah .....redundancy .. mutations ....

Hope I haven't left anything out

Careful now!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

1. A Kind is a group of organisms that are directly descended from a Created Pair of organisms.:cool:

your inability to define a "kind" sums out this whole sorry thread

you don't know (by your own admission) what the Created Pairs were. You don't even have any evidence beyond the Bible that they actually existed.

therefore defining "kinds" based on what Created Pairs nonsense. It is exactly the same as saying "we have no idea what a kind is or even if they exist"

defining what a "kind" actually is, how one would classify it, should be one of the simplest things you could be asked to do. The entire Biblical Creationist claim to their brand of biology is based on "kinds", yet you can't even show that kinds even exist.

I could say that the Bible meant "kind" in simple a non-exact throw away term that most people use it, rather than as an actually biological classification, and you would have absolutely nothing at all to demonstrate I was wrong.

and when pressed on this you simply change the subject. this is the very foundation of your entire claim that your belief system is rooted in science and when pressed to explain it you simply change the subject and wait for the questions to stop.

What does that tell us? What does that tell you?

You have nothing.

All your buster about how evolution is so wrong, all your random quotes and passages dismissing evolution, all your smile faces, all if it is just a smoke screen to hide the fact that you have nothing

There is nothing in "Creation Science," it is smoke and mirrors.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....so does this ALSO mean that the very essence of Science teaching is to teach all of the controversies that arise in Science...
.....but out of deference to the sensitivities of Darwinists and their defunct 'theory' to not mention the controversy about evolution???

....and use the full force of law to punish any teacher who has the temerity to even suggest that evolution might just be a 'load of cobblers'....with apologies in advance to all cobblers!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

You pal Mervyn Storey doesn't want to teach the controversy; he just wants to remove the evidence-based science and teach baseless creationist nonsense.

Anyway, where is this creation science you've been conducting J C? I really want to be saved and a strong evidence base for creation is all that it would take to convince me. Why are you keeping this information to yourself? :mad:

bonkey

JC wrote:

.....and finally I came across the following very moving dedication of 'The Devil's Delusion' by Dr Berlinski:-

To the memory of my maternal grandfather
Samuel Goldfein

15.1.1877 Pruzani
aufdem Transportlisten von 19.9.42 um 17.2.43 gestrichen
am 27.2.43 nach Dresden
am 29.3.43 nach Theresienstadt
am 18.12.43 nach Auschwitz deportiert
in Auschwitz vershollen.
__________________

J C, 2 hours and 52 minutes later wrote:

...I've chosen my quotes carefully to be directly relevant within this thread.....and I have been very open-minded about it.....I have ONLY quoted Evolutionists...and not fellow Creationists!!!

Dr. Berlinski is not an Evolutionist, you quoted him, and the above example is in no way directly relevant to this thread.

Is it so hard to accurately recall what you have posted to this thread within three hours of having done so?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by marco_polo
Because the very essence of proper science is debate and controversy.

Originally Posted by J C
....so does this ALSO mean that the very essence of Science teaching is to teach all of the controversies that arise in Science...
.....but out of deference to the sensitivities of Darwinists and their defunct 'theory' to not mention the controversy about evolution???

....and use the full force of law to punish any teacher who has the temerity to even suggest that evolution might just be a 'load of cobblers'....with apologies in advance to all cobblers!!!!

Galvasean
I suppose if a teacher suggested gravity wasn't real they would receive equal, if not greater hostility and rightly so.

....ah yes, the hairy old argument that Evolution (which nobody has ever experienced with their senses - in every sense of the word 'senses') is somehow equivalent to Gravity....that everybody can directly sense!!!!!

On page 191 of 'The Devil's Delusion' Dr. David Berlinski opinions that:-
"Although Darwin's theory is very often compared favourably to the great theories of Mathematical Physics on the grounds that Evolution is as well established as Gravity, very few physiscists have been heard observing that Gravity is as well established as Evolution. They know better and they are not stupid.".....MBEEP!!!!!:pac::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....I said that the Brachiosaurus and the Giraffe were both MAMMALS.....I didn't say that they were the same Created Kind.

Galvasean
Ah yes, because that would make sense.

.....it would indeed make sense.....glad we agree on that!!!!:pac::D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So, God is unconcerned with the survival time of individuals and is essentially interested in the average survival rate of all humans? He has thus taken an action that ensures some people die very early. He's not interested in the standard deviation of that set either, as His Design Decisions mean that some die before birth, in childhood, in their prime, in their middle ages. Why design such a wide scatter into the system, that some live to 100 while others never live at all? It's possible for the average to remain the same with a tighter standard deviation. For (extreme) example if everyone lived to 70 without fail (excluding death caused by the post-fall environment) and died at that age without fail, the average would still be in line with Divine Writ but everyone would get a chance to live fully and be Saved.

....somebody can live to over 100 years old and not be saved.
God wants to prosper us while we are alive and He wants to save us when we die.
I trust that He will know the right time to call me to be with Jesus Christ....which is FAR BETTER.
In the meantime, I will enjoy the beauty of His Creation in the busom of the loving family that God has blessed me with.
As an undeserving sinner I don't deserve anything.....yet God, in His infinite love has given me everything!!!!:D:)

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Can you suggest how we test the definition of "kinds"?

.....we have been over this MANY TIMES before.......
anyway it is just as easy to scientifically establish the members of a Created Kind as it is to establish the members of a Species, Family or Order in conventional Taxonomy.

The first primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with each other....even with infertile offspring.
The second primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with an intermediate organism. For example, if Organism A cannot interbred with Organism C, but both organism A and C can interbreed with Organism B then Organisms A, B and C are members of the one Created Kind.

.....and just like conventional Taxonomy, further organisms can be provisionally allocated to a particular Kind on the basis of morphology.......and increasingly today, DNA sequencing is being evaluated as a means of definitively allocating particular organisms (that don't meet either of the two primary tests) to particular Kinds.:D:)

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

You pal Mervyn Storey doesn't want to teach the controversy; he just wants to remove the evidence-based science and teach baseless creationist nonsense.

Anyway, where is this creation science you've been conducting J C? I really want to be saved and a strong evidence base for creation is all that it would take to convince me. Why are you keeping this information to yourself? :mad:

.....I don't know Mervyn Storey.....so he is not my pal....although, in general, he does seem to be talking good 'down to earth' Ulster Protestant common sense!!!!!

....and if you really want to be saved....then go and repent and believe on Jesus Christ....

....and if you want a strong evidence base for creation....just read back on my postings on this thread......and if that isn't enough.....just keep watching this space!!!!:):D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....I don't know Mervyn Storey.....so he is not my pal....although he does seem to be talking good 'down to earth' Ulster Protestant sense!!!!!

So you agree that teaching the controversy is wrong and only creationism should be taught in schools' science class?

J C wrote: »

....and if you want a strong evidence base for creation....just read back on my postings on this thread......and if that isn't enough.....just keep watching this space!!!!:):D

Well, you haven't provided any creation science thus far in the thread, so I guess I will have to keep 'watching this space,' waiting for you to provide the creation science you claim to have conducted. But what if I die today and I never get a chance to saved because of your selfish hoarding of this important evidence?? :mad::mad:

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

So you agree that teaching the controversy is wrong and only creationism should be taught in schools' science class?

....Creation Scientists DON'T want Creation Science taught in public school. There is only one thing worse than Creation science not being taught in school....and that is Creation Science being erroneously taught by an Evolutionist with a mission to destroy Creation Science!!!:eek:

School policy is a matter for the school authorities and the parents....so I CERTAINLY don't think that Creation Science should only be taught in school....and from what I have read, I don't think that Mervyn Storey wants that either.

Of course children should be taught everything there is to be known about Evolution...should only take about a half an hour.....but if some long-winded teacher takes a whole year to do so ....why should I be the one to stop them!!!!:pac::):D:p

2Scoops wrote: »

Well, you haven't provided any creation science thus far in the thread, so I guess I will have to keep 'watching this space,' waiting for you to provide the creation science you claim to have conducted. But what if I die today and I never get a chance to saved because of your selfish hoarding of this important evidence?? :mad::mad:

.....your decision to be saved is far too important for you to postpone it because I haven't got around to providing ALL of the evidence for Creation!!!!
I'm not God....even though I am indwelt by Him.
Indeed I have found that since I was saved, that the Holy Spirit was of immeasurable help in understanding science and recognising evil .....another good reason for you to be Saved...sooner rather than later.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....so I CERTAINLY don't think that Creation Science should only be taught in school....and from what I have read, I don't think that Mervyn Storey wants that either.

Well, you should hear what Mervyn himself has to say on the matter. In his opinion, the "ideal" situation would be for evolution to be removed from the school curriculum altogether.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0807/1218047756470.html

J C wrote: »

.....your decision to be saved is far too important for you to postpone it because I haven't got around to providing ALL of the evidence for Creation!!!!
I'm not God....even though I am indwelt by Him.
Indeed I have found that since I was saved, that the Holy Spirit was of immeasurable help in understanding science and recognising evil .....another good reason for you to be Saved...sooner rather than later.

The information you have gathered, creation science conducted by you, as you have claimed, could be pivotal in convincing me of the truth of creation. Indeed, the lack of evidence is the only reason I don't believe the creation story is true. Why are you holding back this important information? Why do you not want to help someone find God?

studiorat

J C wrote: »

Indeed I have found that since I was saved, that the Holy Spirit was of immeasurable help in understanding science and recognising evil .....another good reason for you to be Saved...sooner rather than later.

That's not the holy spirit JC that's your ego. You're telling yourself these things.
Your holy spirit is merely a manifestation of your own self righteousness and misguided self importance. Manifestering if you will...

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote:

So, God is unconcerned with the survival time of individuals and is essentially interested in the average survival rate of all humans? He has thus taken an action that ensures some people die very early. He's not interested in the standard deviation of that set either, as His Design Decisions mean that some die before birth, in childhood, in their prime, in their middle ages. Why design such a wide scatter into the system, that some live to 100 while others never live at all? It's possible for the average to remain the same with a tighter standard deviation. For (extreme) example if everyone lived to 70 without fail (excluding death caused by the post-fall environment) and died at that age without fail, the average would still be in line with Divine Writ but everyone would get a chance to live fully and be Saved.

....somebody can live to 100 years and not be saved.
God wants to prosper us while we are alive and He wants to save us when we die.
I trust that He will know the right time to call me to be with Jesus Christ....which is FAR BETTER.
In the meantime I will enjoy the beauty of His Creation in the busom of the loving family that God has blessed me with.
As an undeserving sinner I don't deserve anything.....yet God, in His infinite love has given me everything!!!!:D:)

The above is a very nice sentiment but does not address my comment. You have not refuted my claim that by your definition, your God is either negligent in design, fallible in His knowledge of the post Fall environment or disinterested in individual human survival rates.

If He is not one or several of the above, this brings us back to abandoning irreducible complexity as evidence, etc. as per the options I've posted about 20 times now.

You have also not explained to me why the creator would choose to show us that we are designed by making some of our systems irreducible complex, but others not, in a random and non-prioritised mix. Why not simply make us entirely irreducibly complex (thus wasting less materials) but instead make our DNA more resistant to mutation or beef up our DNA repair systems?

J C wrote: »

.....we have been over this before.......
anyway it is just as easy to scientifically establish the members of a Created Kind as it is to establish the members of a Species, Family or Order in conventional Taxonomy.

Is "Kind" analogous to one of these taxonomic classes? If not, then what classes does it combine or fall between?

J C wrote: »

The first primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with each other....even with infertile offspring.
The second primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with an intermediate organism. For example, if Organism A cannot interbred with Organism C, but both organism A and C can interbreed with Organism B then Organisms A, B and C are members of the one Created Kind.

Now we're getting somewhere. I'll come back to this shortly.

J C wrote: »

.....and just like conventional Taxonomy, further organisms can be provisionally allocated to a particular Kind on the basis of morphology.......and increasingly today, DNA sequencing is being evaluated as a means of definitively allocating particular organisms (that don't meet either of the two primary tests) to particular Kinds.:D:)

How is DNA sequencing used to determine kinds? Is it similar to some form of cladistics?

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Well, you should hear what Mervyn himself has to say on the matter. In his opinion, the "ideal" situation would be for evolution to be removed from the school curriculum altogether.

...Evolution should NOT be removed from the school curriculum....because micro-evolution is an improtant established Scientific fact....and macro-evolution is an important cultural myth!!!!

2Scoops wrote: »

The information you have gathered, creation science conducted by you, as you have claimed, could be pivotal in convincing me of the truth of creation. Indeed, the lack of evidence is the only reason I don't believe the creation story is true. Why are you holding back this important information? Why do you not want to help someone find God?

....God will find you.....if you will repent and believe on Jesus Christ.....just say :-
"I am an unworthy sinner and I come before you Jesus to confess my sin and repent of all my evil deeds of mind and body ....I believe that ONLY you, Jesus Christ, can Save me and I ask that in your loving mercy that you would Save me from eternal perdition right now".

If you have said that simple prayer ... and really meant it, you are Saved and I welcome you as a new Christian and a fellow brother in Jesus Christ.

J C

studiorat wrote: »

That's not the holy spirit JC that's your ego. You're telling yourself these things.
Your holy spirit is merely a manifestation of your own self righteousness and misguided self importance. Manifestering if you will...

.....when have I made a self-righteous comment on this thread????

.....I am merely a sinful Human undeserving of anything .....yet getting everything from the Creator God of the Universe, whom I PERSONALLY know as my friend and Saviour.

I have absolute compassion for other sinful Humans who are on the road to perdition.....because 'I too was that soldier'.....and I thought that either God didn't exist or if He did I didn't really want to know Him....but all that changed when I was Saved.....what Amazing Grace that saved a wretch like me!!!:D:)

J C

bonkey wrote: »

Dr. Berlinski is not an Evolutionist, you quoted him, and the above example is in no way directly relevant to this thread.

Is it so hard to accurately recall what you have posted to this thread within three hours of having done so?

Non-Evolutionists ALSO have valuable opinions on the 'origins question' as well.

I stand corrected ......and I should have said that I mostly quoted Evolutionists !!!!:o:)

...and here is a quote from Niles Eldredge that provides a salutory warning to us ALL about absolute authority corrupting absolutely...and a very good reason why alternative opinions should ALWAYS be taught.....and why acaedemic freedom (within the bounds of morality and legality) should ALWAYS be respected and protected:-
"Three cheers to the fundamentalists in California who succeeded in having a dogmatic formulation of the theory of evolution removed from the text books and an account of Genesis included. (But I know that they would become as chauvinistic and totalitarian as scientists are today when given the chance to run society all by themselves. Ideologies are marvelous when used in the companies of other ideologies. They become boring and doctrinaire as soon as their merits lead to the removal of their opponents.) The most important change, however, will have to occur in the field of education." Knowledge Science and Relativism (1999) pp.187-188.

....in this regard, I often think that the 'dogmatic churchmen' who opposed, even micro-Evolution, in the 19th Century, are kindred spirits of the 'dogmatic scientists' who oppose Creation Science today....they are both 'establishment figures'.......and isn't it ironic that many 'mainstream' churches that bitterly opposed Darwin....have turned through 180 degrees......and are now almost as scathing of Creation Science today!!!!:)