The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

J C wrote: »

there IS a 'Creation Thicket'

Two letters too many.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Pahu
In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief.

robindch
And the belief that the earth is roundy is "just a belief" too.

.....the belief that strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief ... in a (particularly defective) interpretation of the evidence....

....while the belief that the Earth is spheroidal is based on an (accurate) observation of the evidence!!!

...I greatly fear that the distinction between the two may be 'lost' on you Robin ... but one can but try to 'straighten out' your thinking on this issue!!!!:pac::):D

..anyway what DO you think of Prof Dawkins statement that it is possible that you might find a 'signature' of some sort of designer in the "details of biochemistry and molecular biology"
....sounds like a dramatic admission that Intelligent Design may be scientifically VALID after all!!!!:pac::):D

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yeah, although if my local priest had a (verifiable) track record of improving the lives of the entire human race over the past 300 years, I would probably do the same.

... this old lady thought that her local priest had a TWO THOUSAND year 'track record' .... so I guess she was behaving more rationally than you ... with your 'peer review' mantra ... every time somebody delivers a devastating 'body blow' to Evolution!!!:pac::):D

Flamed Diving

J C wrote: »

... this old lady thought that her local priest had a TWO THOUSAND year 'track record' .... so I guess she was behaving more rationally than you ... with your 'peer review' mantra ... every time somebody delivers a devastating 'body blow' to Evolution!!!:pac::):D

You missed the word verifiable. Our perhaps you omitted it, once again contravening poor Deuteronomy 5:20...

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

You missed the word verifiable. Our perhaps you omitted it, once again contravening poor Deuteronomy 5:20...

...and unfortunately you seem to have missed Prof Dawkins admission that NOBODY has a scientific clue about how life occurred .... and Evolution 'from mice to men' ... has NEVER been verified!!!!

....so you ARE behaving like that old lady ... with the 'peer review' mantra that you 'whip out' and 'bang on the table' every time your Evolutionist Worldview is threathened with devastation ....
....which is most days on this thread !!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....it is entitled "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life" .... and it isn't the ONLY thing that Darwin was wrong about either!!!!:eek::D

I'm sure it isn't, but he was right about natural selection.

J C wrote: »

....there NEVER was an 'Evolutionary Tree' .... but there IS a 'Creation Thicket' .... made up of thousands of INDIVIDUAL KINDS...that actually branched out quickly to becomes a web of interconnected species!!!!

So, why do the genetics say they're all related to to original species rather than multiple orginal species. Also, how did the Moth/butterfly kind become 130,000+ species in 4000 years without someone in the bible asking "where the hell are all these butterflies coming from?"

J C wrote: »

....as usual the Evolutionists see the evidence against Evolution ... and in favour of Creation ... but they refuse to accept what it implies!!!!

How is evidence that differing species are related through horizontal gene transfer evidence against evolution or for creation? We even have observable mechanisms for HGT.

J C wrote: »

...phew...just as well that the Evolutionsts have abandoned the Evolutionary Tree then .... thereby allowing them to continue in denial of their Creator!!!:pac::):D

Changing our minds in the face of evidence. Crazy huh?

J C wrote: »

....no, not a revolution ... just a continued denial of the obvious .... that Creation occurred!!!

When are you planning to answer the 13 questions which could actually be considered good evidence of that? All you're doing now is blowing smoke.

J C wrote: »

...and here is the 'Creation Thicket'...that the Evolutionists have just discovered ... contrasted with the Darwinian 'Evolutionist Tree' ... that they have just abandoned!!!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v2/n2/orchard-tree.gif

If creation really happened that diagram is still wrong because it's still just a series of trees rather than having the reconnecting branches expected by HGT. Also, the genetics still says we have one common ancestor species.

J C wrote: »

.....what do they say again? .... ah yes....
..."give me one Creation Scientist ... and you can keep a thousand Evolutionists!!!!":eek::eek::D

Actually they say "show us one active Creation Scientist, anywhere, please." Can you oblige J C?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

..anyway what DO you think of Prof Dawkins statement that it is possible that you might find a 'signature' of some sort of designer in the "details of biochemistry and molecular biology"
....sounds like a dramatic admission that Intelligent Design may be scientifically VALID after all!!!!:pac::):D

Why don't you point out the post where we said intelligent design was impossible?

What Dawkins was very obviously saying was that we'd expect to see evidence of ID in the genetic record if some form of design (though not Behe-style ID) were real. While the designer is not specified as unobservable, ID is a testable hypothesis. Of course, the tested evidence says it's a non-runner. But Stein then put words in Dawkins' mouth via a voice over which of course Dawkins could not possibly refute. Rather underhanded, wouldn't you say?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm sure it isn't, but he was right about natural selection.

...Creation Science accepts NS ... it's 'Mice to Men' and similar delusions that they DON'T accept!!:)

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So, why do the genetics say they're all related to to original species rather than multiple orginal species.

....theyre all related to original KINDS .... rather than multiple Kinds!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Also, how did the Moth/butterfly kind become 130,000+ species in 4000 years without someone in the bible asking "where the hell are all these butterflies coming from?"

....they (mostly) thanked their Creator for His wonderful abundance ... while the Evolutionists continue to wonder where the Butterflies ACTUALLY have come from ... some even think that Aliens did it!!!:pac::)

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How is evidence that differing species are related through horizontal gene transfer evidence against evolution or for creation? We even have observable mechanisms for HGT.

... its the 'Creation Forest' that is the problem for Evolution ... not HGT!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Changing our minds in the face of evidence. Crazy huh?

...so WHY DON'T you change your mind in the face of the overwhelming evidence for Creation then??

AtomicHorror wrote: »

When are you planning to answer the 13 questions which could actually be considered good evidence of that? All you're doing now is blowing smoke.

.... I don't wish to repeat myself ... at least not on every page !!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If creation really happened that diagram is still wrong because it's still just a series of trees rather than having the reconnecting branches expected by HGT. Also, the genetics still says we have one common ancestor species.

...HGT is a bacterial phenomenon ... the 'Creation Forest' refers to 'higher' plants and animals!!!!:eek::eek:

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....what do they say again? .... ah yes....
..."give me one Creation Scientist ... and you can keep a thousand Evolutionists!!!!":eek::eek::D

Can you give us one creation scientist? I'll exchange 1000 AtomicHorrors for it.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

... this old lady thought that her local priest had a TWO THOUSAND year 'track record' .... so I guess she was behaving more rationally than you ... with your 'peer review' mantra ... every time somebody delivers a devastating 'body blow' to Evolution!!!:pac::):D

What's so bad about peer review?

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

...Creation Science accepts NS ... it's 'Mice to Men' and similar delusions that they DON'T accept!!:)

No one believes mice evolved into men. As well you know.

J C wrote: »

...so WHY DON'T you change your mind in the face of the overwhelming evidence for Creation then??

Show this evidence of which you speak and then it can be considered. Stop hiding your creation science results back in your G:\

Morbert

....theyre all related to original KINDS .... rather than multiple Kinds!!!!

If "KINDS" is a scientifically supported concept then I'm sure you won't mind providing scientific evidence for the specific number of original kinds, and where the resultant "invisible genetic barriers" lie along the history of life.

And if we assme that the number of "kinds" was sufficiently small enough to allow two of every kind on a big boat a few thousand years ago, then how do we explain the massive number of species today? Natural selection and speciation would have to occur at a ridiculously accelerated, cartoon like rate.

Morbert

Morbert wrote: »

If "KINDS" is a scientifically supported concept then I'm sure you won't mind providing scientific evidence for the specific number of original kinds, and where the resultant "invisible genetic barriers" lie along the history of life.

And if we assme that the number of "kinds" was sufficiently small enough to allow two of every kind on a big boat a few thousand years ago, then how do we explain the massive number of species today? Natural selection and speciation would have to occur at a ridiculously accelerated, cartoon like rate.

I've often heard it said that Noah had a peculiar penchant for Beatles, he saved well over 350,000 species of them.

JimiTime

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've often heard it said that Noah had a peculiar penchant for Beatles, he saved well over 350,000 species of them.

There was only 4 of them wasn't there? Or with George Martin, 5 max.:pac:

Sorry, couldn't resist:)

kiffer

Pahu wrote: »

...
The Cambrian layer has virtually every species known to man. Yes, dinosaurs, birds, reptiles, and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer.

This sir, I would maintain, is poppycock.
I challenge you to provide me with a such fossil from the Cambrian... or retract the statement.
I think you are a little confused... there are samples of pretty much all modern phyla found in the Cambrian but not all classes/subclasses and so on...
For example in the Cambrian we find members of the phylum Chordata... but not any members of the class synapsids/theropsids, (a subset of Chordata, they don't show up till the carboniferous) mammals are a subclass of this and don't show up in the record until the Triassic... there are no mammal fossils in Cambrian deposits... there are no members of the Superorder Dinosauria found in the Cambrian deposits...
You don't even find land plants (embryophytes) in the Cambrian, what would your crypo-dinos eat? Manna from heaven?

Seriously... what you are saying is as wrong as (worse than!) this,
"All the basics of modern music, (percussion, singing, wind instruments, the makings of plucked stringed instruments and so on), are found in the music made by men living in Ur thousands of years ago... therefore they they had Opera, Massive Orchestral Works, Rap, Hiphop, and Techno, Jazz and Punk, and they produced the Ring of the Nibelung,The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Highschool Musical 3"

Then rightly pointing out that they didn't have Highschool Musical 3 (it is a horror reserved for modern man and anyone trapped on the sixth level of hell), you try to claim that they must not have had drums or even sticks to bang together.

A terrible analogue, both in form and function... just like the suggestion that you find bird fossils in the Cambrian.
Reductio ad absurdum FTW! 5am your finest choice for fail.

... A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory.

So which is it? dishonest or unreasonable? or both? Or are you just backing a loosing horse here?
It can't really be unreasonable as we use all the reasoned techniques gleaned from our study of the rocks to find all those vital resources... pretty every single thing you use today that is not grown on a plant or taken from an animal, has come out of the ground. All your metal objects, all you plastics, if it's not made from an animal or plant, we took it from the ground. Minerals are located by geologists...
They study the earth constantly...
Their theories did not arrive in some random geologists head fully formed and end up being the standing theories because he was best in debate club... they are the result of years of hard work, exploration and experimentation, and represent our current and best (so far) understanding of the giant ball of rock we live on.
I've yet to see any creationist put forth any substantial credible arguments in favor of a young earth.
I've seen one or two almost good attempts (at damaging one or two dating methods) around the place... but nothing that holds any water when examined, and nothing actually promoting a young Earth that even comes close to a functioning hypothesis.

It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientist’s own interpretation of geologic evidence. In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief. Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists worldwide.

It's noteworthy that you have been clearly mislead into thinking that dinosaur fossils are found in the Cambrian rocks, or that you have cheerfully misunderstood what you have read and confused Phyla with Classes.

The Ages are a human construct, in the same way that the hours on the clock are not real but none the less the day is.
The rocks are there, go out and look at them, it's impossible for Creationists to reasonably explain the geological features that are seen in reality.
Geology is a massive subject (Earth is a big auld girl)... a weak (mis)understanding of one or two processes doesn't hold any sway compared to the weight of evidence coming down on the side of Deep Time.


Note to self: don't post at night anymore.

Flamed Diving

J C wrote: »

...and unfortunately you seem to have missed Prof Dawkins admission that NOBODY has a scientific clue about how life occurred .... and Evolution 'from mice to men' ... has NEVER been verified!!!

Once again, you are lying. Deuteronomy 5:20.

By the way, your continued evasion of AH's 13 questions is one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed in a debate. It's like that time Jeremy Paxman asked Michael Howard the same question 15 times in a row, and Howard kept dodging it because the truth was too damaging.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BklT7Qy07Is

The Mad Hatter

JimiTime wrote: »

There was only 4 of them wasn't there? Or with George Martin, 5 max.:pac:

Sorry, couldn't resist:)

Nope, the Fifth Beatle (Diapente Pello pepulli pulsum*) is a widely varied species.

*Thank Google for online English-Latin translators

robindch

J C wrote: »

but there IS a 'Creation Thicket'

Just struck me that "thicket" seems like a good collective term for creationists

MrPudding

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Also, can I just claim psychic ability?

Well, it is the "Bible Creationism & Prophecy" thread after all.

MrP

Galvasean

Pahu wrote: »

“Cambrian explosion” refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every species known to man. Yes, dinosaurs, birds, reptiles, and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.

If you could find a Cambrian era rock with dinosaur, bird or reptile fossils in it you would quickly become the most famous fossil hunter in existence. Which begs the question, if it's so easy why has no one done it?

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Can you give us one creation scientist? I'll exchange 1000 AtomicHorrors for it.

...your 'exchange rate' seems to be correct!!!!:eek::D

....the only problem could be the subsequent career 'difficulties' for the Creation Scientist in any such arrangement!!!!:eek::eek:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Pahu
The Cambrian layer has virtually every species known to man. Yes, dinosaurs, birds, reptiles, and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.

Flamed Diving
Link to peer-reviewed scientific paper, please.


Originally Posted by J C
...you are beginning to sound like a lovely old lady that I once knew ... who would believe nothing unless her local priest confirmed that he also accepted it ... I guess it was her version of 'peer review'!!!

2Scoops
What's so bad about peer review?

...There is nothing 'bad' about peer review ... except when you rely EXCLUSIVELY on it ... when some 'peer reviewed' ideas are clearly nonesense!!!!

....like I have said 'peer review' can become a form of 'thought control' similar to religion!!!!

Flamed Diving's reflex request for 'peer review' is similar to that lovely old lady always asking "what does the Priest say about it?"...when confronted with any new idea.
....Flamed Diving is also effectively asking "what does the Materialist say about it?"...even when the answer is obvious ... to all, except somebody in deep denial!!!

...BTW I came across the following quote recently, which I thought was very apt for all of the Materialists out there....

The truth will set you free .... but it can 'cheese you off' ... at first !!!":D

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

No one believes mice evolved into men. As well you know.

....I agree that nobody should believe that mice evolved into men....

... however, Evolutionists DO say that the 'first mammal' ... from which all mammals (including Humans) are supposedly descended ... looked something like a glorified rat.

....so Evolutionists certainly DO believe that 'Rats evolved into Men'!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Flamed Diving

J C wrote: »

...There is nothing bad about peer review ... except when you rely EXCLUSIVELY on it ... even when some 'peer reviewed' ideas are plainly nonesense!!!!

....like I have said 'peer review' can become a form of 'thought control' similar to religion!!!!

Flamed Diving's reflex request for 'peer review' is similar to that lovely old lady always asking "what does the Priest say about it?"...
....Flamed Diving effectively asking "what does the Materialist say about it?"...even when the answer is obvious ... to all, except somebody in deep denial!!!

...BTW I came across the following recently, which I thought was very apt for all of the Materialists out there....

The truth will set you free .... but it can 'cheese you off' ... at first !!!":D

Well, peer-reviewed science has given us the 21st century lifestyle that you and I enjoy today. Your computer, mobile phone, medical care, the list is endless. So I suppose you could understand why I have such a degree of respect for it. It must be difficult living such a hypocritical life, is it?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
..anyway what DO you think of Prof Dawkins statement that it is possible that you might find a 'signature' of some sort of designer in the "details of biochemistry and molecular biology"
....sounds like a dramatic admission that Intelligent Design may be scientifically VALID after all!!!!


AtomicHorror
Why don't you point out the post where we said intelligent design was impossible?

.... the Materialists have spent much of their time on this thread 'rubbishing' the scientific validity of ID ... and denying the obvious evidence for an Intelligent Creation of the tightly specified, highly complex information found in all living systems!!!

wrote:

AtomicHorror
What Dawkins was very obviously saying was that we'd expect to see evidence of ID in the genetic record if some form of design (though not Behe-style ID) were real. While the designer is not specified as unobservable, ID is a testable hypothesis.

....what Prof Dawkins actually said was that it is possible that you might find a 'signature' of some sort of designer in the "details of biochemistry and molecular biology"

....this is PRECISELY the argument which ID Proponents have used to justify ID as a SCIENTIFIC endeavour....that it is PHYSICALLY possible to PHYSICALLY assess the PHYSICAL evidence for an Intelligent Creation of life!!!!:cool::D

....ID Proponents argue, as Prof Dawkins has admitted, that physical evidence of intelligent activity CAN be objectively i.e. scientifically assessed ... and when this scientific assessment is made ... we DO find a 'signature' of some sort of intelligent designer(s) in the "details of biochemistry and molecular biology"

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, peer-reviewed science has given us the 21st century lifestyle that you and I enjoy today. Your computer, mobile phone, medical care, the list is endless. So I suppose you could understand why I have such a degree of respect for it. It must be difficult living such a hypocritical life, is it?

...you're still sounding like that Little Old Lady...who used to claim that Priests were largely responsible for ALL that was 'good' in 1970's Irish Society!!!

The reality is that Quality Control Systems and a lot of inventive minds (some of them Creation Scientists) are responsible for the excellence of the computers, mobile phones, medical care, etc which we all enjoy !!!!:eek::)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by -JammyDodger-
I've often heard it said that Noah had a peculiar penchant for Beatles, he saved well over 350,000 species of them.

JimiTime
There was only 4 of them wasn't there? Or with George Martin, 5 max.:pac:

Sorry, couldn't resist:)

....the number of ORIGINAL Beetle Kinds was closer to 5 than 350,000!!!!

....and Noah didn't have to bother himself with saving ANY Beetles....most probably survived on driftwood and vegetation mats during the Flood!!!:cool::pac::):D

J C

robindch wrote: »

Just struck me that "thicket" seems like a good collective term for creationists

...as the term 'thicket' was first used on this thread by EVOLUTIONISTS ... I think I will grant the 'honour' to the Evolutionists of being collectively know as 'Thickets' from now on ...
....fair is fair ... and if the 'cap fits' ... then any 'Evolutionist Thickets' out there ... should 'wear' it!!!!:eek::D:)

J C

kiffer wrote: »

Note to self: don't post at night anymore.

....good advice!!!:):D:eek:

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

If you could find a Cambrian era rock with dinosaur, bird or reptile fossils in it you would quickly become the most famous fossil hunter in existence. Which begs the question, if it's so easy why has no one done it?

...for the very SIMPLE reason that if a 'Cambrian era rock' were found with dinosaur, bird or reptile fossils ... it would IMMEDIATELY be reclassified as NOT a 'Cambrian era rock' ... and if you pursued your 'discovery' you might find yourself as the most famous former fossil hunter in existence!!!!:eek::eek::pac::):D