The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

kiffer

sukikettle wrote: »

Kiffer I don't have questions I have my bible sweetie

ok... and you don't feel in anyway compelled to answer any of my previous questions.
I'm done. No questions/No answers, No conversation.

sukikettle

Atomic I can do serious or wind-up but seeing as it's all comedians in here ... do you think Christians are very serious and self-righteous well we're not ... you have no idea what it means to be one after all

sukikettle

Kiffer is on a revenge tactic....I forgive you

Flamed Diving

sukikettle wrote: »

do you think Christians are very serious and self-righteous well we're not

Do you think that the Earth, all of its creatures and the entire universe were created just for special humans? Or any of those, in isolation?

sukikettle

I seriously didn't read any questions. I seriously don't read long posts. I'm direct and original and don't plagiarise my point

sukikettle

Write that another way I don't get your question Flamed.
I will attempt however by saying the earth was created to nurture and care for all of us

Flamed Diving

sukikettle wrote: »

Write that another way I don't get your question Flamed.
I will attempt however by saying the earth was created to nurture and care for all of us

Did God create the Earth and the Universe, just for us?

sukikettle

In fact I've never seen a post go up you guys are always posted while I'm in here writing. You just mysteriously respond...

sukikettle

yes but it became cursed after the fall of man...and has been decaying gradually ever since. Even creation is longing for the revealing of the sons of man

sukikettle

backseat modding...just noticed that and what is that?
I'm either a mod or I'm not....well I'm....none of your beeswax rock

Flamed Diving

sukikettle wrote: »

yes but it became cursed after the fall of man...and has been decaying gradually ever since. Even creation is longing for the revealing of the sons of man

And you don't think that the belief that the entire universe (some billion trillion trillion stars) being created just for us is not a tad self-righteous?

AtomicHorror

sukikettle wrote: »

Atomic I can do serious or wind-up but seeing as it's all comedians in here ... do you think Christians are very serious and self-righteous well we're not ... you have no idea what it means to be one after all

I talk to J C on a regular basis. He's all about the wacky humour. So of course I don't think you guys are all serious. I don't think you're all anything.

sukikettle

nope there are a billion trillion atoms in a slice of bread don't you think that's a bit greedy...didn't think so

sukikettle

Atomic you are just being nasty...be nice <first emoticon> gee Atomic!

AtomicHorror

sukikettle wrote: »

Atomic you are just being nasty...be nice <first emoticon> gee Atomic!

I really wasn't. Nasty I can do, but I prefer to avoid that.

sukikettle

God! I mean Good! Atomic

sukikettle

me too tired, have to skidaddle and just remember Jesus loves you and you have everything to gain and nothing to lose in Him and no quotes just accept it

AtomicHorror

No stamina at all. Where is your God now?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No stamina at all. Where is your God now?

.....her God is right by her side, protecting her spiritually in the palm of His hand!!!!

.....she has become a new creation and a child of God...so in the name of Jesus Christ, I ask you to leave her be.

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Did God create the Earth and the Universe, just for us?

...in a word ... YES!!!!

The Mad Hatter

Glad you're online J C. Hoping Atomic Horror doesn't come on until later?

How about you answer some of his questions now?

Flamed Diving

J C wrote: »

...in a word ... YES!!!!

Therefore Christians are self-righteous.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....her God is right by her side, protecting her spiritually in the palm of His hand!!!!

I was just teasing her. We were having a silly conversation.

J C wrote: »

.....she has become a new creation and a child of God...so in the name of Jesus Christ, I ask you to leave her be.

I've was very polite to her, up until the point that she started suggesting that UU needed to be cured and that I was trying to comfort myself with large posts. She'd also probably have a go at you for using the quote button. But as I said, I was pretty nice to her. I even advised her not to engage with the A&A guys as I reckon they'll end up upsetting her. Well, assuming she's not a wind-up.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Glad you're online J C. Hoping Atomic Horror doesn't come on until later?

How about you answer some of his questions now?

Had a day off yesterday. Will probably not be around much today either. J C reckons he's already answered most of the big questions, but really just replied with a kinda "Q. What's your favourite fruit? A. Potatos" kinda thing. Replies and answers not being the same thing.

Zombrex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Therefore Christians are self-righteous.

I would have though believing the entire universe was created so humans could exist was egotistical rather than self-righteous

Flamed Diving

Wicknight wrote: »

I would have though believing the entire universe was created so humans could exist was egotistical rather than self-righteous

Can't it be both?

Zombrex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Can't it be both?

Touche :pac:

Húrin

J C wrote: »

...in a word ... YES!!!!

So what if aliens with a similar or greater spiritual awareness than we, also exist in God's creation?

AtomicHorror

Húrin wrote: »

So what if aliens with a similar or greater spiritual awareness than we, also exist in God's creation?

I suspect J C will contend that this is impossible. Now, he won't be able to give us any evidence, but much like his claims of the impossibility of abiogenesis I'm sure he'll be able to construct a suitable straw man.

JoBlog

Thanks Atomic H. I'll just explore the third question for the moment, maybe more on the other two questions later.

JoBlog wrote: »

An example on a less grand scale of something in nature which I find incompatible with natural selection working alone is the reproduction rate of the golden eagle (for one). This is very low (a major problem for those trying to reintroduce it into areas where it is extinct). It is easy to understand why this species did not need a high reproduction rate before the invention of the gun. Its habit of nesting on cliff ledges where it was safe from predation combined with its tactic of swoping on small prey without landing meant that before the gun it had no significant predators.
So a pair lived an easy life and produced an egg or two every few years and spent a long time in rearing them into independent adults. Then they generally died of old age or its associated diseases. This worked for a long time and ensured the survival of that species. But we know from other birds that are victims of predation on a grand scale that rearing several broods per year is feasible for birds. My difficulty is that natural variation and selection would keep selecting the golden eagles that tended to reproduce the larger numbers of offspring until eventually they were breeding like sparrows and magpies. Why has this not happened? Tougher question: assuming that they evolved from a common bird ancestor with a much higher reproduction rate, how did they manage to go against natural selection and favour the variations which produced less offpring when they discovered cliff life?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This depends on how quickly the species declined in numbers and what genes control reproductive rates in them. Remember that the gun has been in existence for some 500 years in various forms. This is the briefest moment in evolutionary terms. Given that the species reproduces slowly, and thus has a long generation time, we'd expect significant changes to occur slowly, especially if multiple mutations would be required.

I agree fully that the 500 years of the gun is too short for noticeable changes in this case. You misunderstood this part of my question. I was not asking why there was no change since the gun but why there was such an ideal reproduction rate for the tens of thousands of years before the gun! (The mention of the gun was an unnecessary and perhaps confusing detail). Let me elaborate:

During that long interval after the discovery of the cliff niche and before the gun, there would have been natural variation in the offspring reproduction rate of the eagles. We know from other birds that a much higher rate of reproduction is biologically feasible. I cannot see why the variations towards higher reproduction rates within the feasible range would not be selected at the expense of the current ideal reproduction rate (for the pre-gun environment). The fact that it would be unnecessarily high would not affect the fact that there would be more birds with this variation entering the breeding stock constantly and causing this variation to predominate and develop towards the feasible limits. The fact that the entire species would have to work harder for food as their numbers grew and would gradually die younger as the pressure mounted would not reflect back to somehow favour those practising wise birth control in the common interest.

The second part "the tougher question" was simply pointing out that the evotionary process would have had to somehow swim against this pressure of natural variation and selection in the first place as presumably the low birth rate birds on the cliffs were descendents of faster breeding birds from the pre cliff discovery era.

I cannot see how the wise common interest birth control was maintained against the force of natural variation and selection which would favour the higher irresponsible level within the feasible limits, much less how this wisdom could have been evolved in the first place.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well, if producing lots of offspring in a given environment is detrimental (and this might be due to many factors), then the chance that you will survive to look after your offspring and thus that your offspring will survive to reproduce again is going to be reduced. In that situation, your less fertile cousin is actually going to stand a better chance of surviving overall, of reproducing, and of surviving to protect and feed offspring so that they survive. So natural selection favours the slower reproduction rate in this case.

That would be one simplified scenario, though we might imagine many other ones.

This is true in principle, it just seems that the actual current rate is too far from the feasible limits to be selected for. It all just seems a bit too relaxed and easy going - perhaps the wise limit of variation was set by some wise meddling?

Zombrex

JoBlog wrote: »

The fact that it would be unnecessarily high would not affect the fact that there would be more birds with this variation entering the breeding stock constantly and causing this variation to predominate and develop towards the feasible limits. The fact that the entire species would have to work harder for food as their numbers grew and would gradually die younger as the pressure mounted would not reflect back to somehow favour those practising wise birth control in the common interest.

I'm not an expert on eagles, but I imagine that the reproduction rate is controlled by the availability of food. Eagles often have to travel distance to get food, this increases energy expenditure and decreases the "worth" of the meal they catch. So would children. An eagle that has long periods of child raring decreases the energy they have available to themselves.

This is in contrast to other birds who often have food sources close by and do not require as much energy expenditure.