The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

2Scoops wrote: »

And will there be a single creation science publication between now and then? :pac:

Not of any worth, no.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...so ARE you saying that you don't know what information is or how to recognise it definitively?

Haha, nice try. Actually, no, exceptionally poor try, but then you are running out of ideas.

I understand the word 'information' in several contexts, but in a biological context it does not yet have a definition. Your only definition of it (see above) is an example of circular logic on a teeny tiny scale. Hence: cute.

Your little factory metaphor doesn't work either, because there's no selection involved.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Haha, nice try. Actually, no, exceptionally poor try, but then you are running out of ideas.

I understand the word 'information' in several contexts, but in a biological context it does not yet have a definition. Your only definition of it (see above) is an example of circular logic on a teeny tiny scale. Hence: cute.

Your little factory metaphor doesn't work either, because there's no selection involved.

....so you CAN'T define genetic information then!!!!

....and you are now claiming that there is NO SELECTION involved in Evolution!!!.....MBEEP>>>>>MBEEP>>>>>MBEEEEP!!!!:D
....can I draw people's attention to the sorry state that is 'Evolution'....

....the thing is in such a mess that many Evolutionists I know, won't even admit that they are 'Evolutionists' any longer ...

.......anybody hear the Mooney Programme on RTE Radio 1 this afternoon???
The item was supposed to provide a bit of PR for 'Darwin 200' but turned into a bit of a disaster for the 'Evolutionist Cause' with the confirmation that Humans 'rapidly exploded' out of Africa (actually the Middle East) very recently, Mitochondrial Eve existed and we are all descended from this ONE woman, y-Chromosome Adam existed and we are all descended from this ONE man...and the Human Brain is TOTALLY unique ... and that was the Evolutionists talking!!!!:)

....it was also confirmed that a number of Darwin's children suffered from fatal debilitating conditions ... which were due to 'inbreeding depression' ... because Darwin had married his first cousin ... in the erroneous belief that inbreeding would improve the genetics of his offspring!!!!!

...Mooney then read out Creationist phone-in comments about the young age of the Earth ... and expressed amazement that a medieval tomb had (apparently contemporaneous drawings) of large DINOSAURS engraved upon it!!!!:pac::):D

I'd say it was 'game set and match' for Creation Science ... all the way!!!!

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

and expressed amazement that a mideval tomb had (apparently contemporaneous drawings) of large DINOSAURS engraved upon it!!!!:pac::):D

There's a contemporaneous picture of a dinosaur on my fridge - my 4 year old son drew it.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

There's a contemporaneous picture of a dinosaur on my fridge - my 4 year old son drew it.

....drawings of Dinosaurs are common-place today...so that is why your son has the drawing on your fridge.....
...but the point that was made on the Mooney programme was that Dinosaurs were only rediscovered and forensically reconstructed from their fossils in the 1840's....by Creation Scientist Sir Richard Owen, Founding Director of the Natural History Museum ... and therefore an anatomically correct drawing of a Dinosaur on a Medieval tomb indicates familiarity by the artist with LIVING Dinosaurs!!!!:eek::eek::):D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....drawings of Dinosaurs are common-place today...so that is why your son has the drawing on your fridge.....
...but the point that was made on the Mooney programme was that Dinosaurs were only rediscovered and forensically reconstructed from their fossils in the 1840's....and therefore an anatomically correct drawing of a Dinosaur on a Midieval tomb indicates familiarity by the artist with LIVING Dinosaurs!!!!:eek::eek::):D

Oops, forgot to mention: my 6 year old has a picture of a monster in his copy book. Indicating his familiarity with a LIVING monster, obviously.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....drawings of Dinosaurs are common-place today...so that is why your son has the drawing on your fridge.....
...but the point that was made on the Mooney programme was that Dinosaurs were only rediscovered and forensically reconstructed from their fossils in the 1840's....and therefore an anatomically correct drawing of a Dinosaur on a Midieval tomb indicates familiarity by the artist with LIVING Dinosaurs!!!!

2Scoops
Oops, forgot to mention: my 6 year old has a picture of a monster in his copy book. Indicating his familiarity with a LIVING monster, obviously.

....a drawing of a 'monster' is obviously a figment of the imagination...but an ANATOMICALLY CORRECT drawing of a large Dinosaur on a Medieval tomb is valid forensic evidence of familiarity at the time with LIVING Dinosaurs!!!!:pac::):D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....a drawing of a 'monster' is obviously a figment of the imagination...but an ANATOMICALLY CORRECT drawing of a large Dinosaur on a Midieval tomb is valid forensic evidence of familiarity by the artist with LIVING Dinosaurs!!!!:pac::):D

The monster drawing was anatomically correct too - looks exactly like a monster should look. It had arms, legs and a head. But please indulge me and show these drawings of 'anatomically correct' dinosaurs. I'm dying to see.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....a drawing of a 'monster' is obviously a figment of the imagination...

Perhaps his next drawing will be of a creation scientist? :pac:

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

The monster drawing was anatomically correct too - looks exactly like a monster should look. It had arms, legs and a head.

....you're now starting to 'talk through your hat'!!!!!:D:eek::D

2Scoops wrote: »

But please indulge me and show these drawings of 'anatomically correct' dinosaurs. I'm dying to see.

...always willing to oblige!!!:D

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/bishop.asp


http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/engraved.htm

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/bishop.asp
http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/engraved.htm

Don't look like anatomically correct dinosaurs to me. Can you show a side by side comparison of the drawing with the fossil remains of a dinosaur it's supposed to approximate, just to be sure?

What about Griffins and other mythical beasts drawn in medieval times, btw - did they really exist as well?

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Don't look like anatomically correct dinosaurs to me. Can you show a side by side comparison of the drawing with the fossil remains of a dinosaur it's supposed to approximate, just to be sure?

....naked DENIAL!!!!:eek::D:pac:


....the pips are squeaking....the pips are squeaking!!!!:eek::eek::pac::D

MBEEP......MBEEPP.......MMBBBEEEEPPPP!!!!!:eek::pac::):D

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...if that is the case, then you are not going to get much further that ONE critical Amino Acid Sequence about 80 Amino Acids long ... and to do so will require ALL of the time and matter in the supposed Big Bang Universe!!!!

There is no evidence for this assertion.

....if Non-random selection of random mutations worked, every factory would simply churn out random junk and then select useful product from it ... but it doesn't work ... because it would ALL be junk ... with practically NO functionally useful product ... and that is why factories use precisely (and intelligently) designed systems to deliver precisely (and intelligently) designed product ... ditto with living proccesses!!!:):D

Living processes reproduce. So it is not "ditto".

The great Dr Stephen Meyer has the following words of wisdom for all of the 'died in the wool' Darwinists out there:-

"We've learned a lot about biology since the (American) Civil War (in 1860). Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working. Explanations from the era of the steamboat are no longer adequate to explain the biological world of the information age." ....Darwinist explantions are inadequate .... but this doesn't stop Evolutionists trying ...I guess, Evolution still 'floats' their (steam) boats!!!!:D:D

"Darwinists say they're under some sort of epistemological obligation to continue trying, because to invoke design would be to give up on science. Well, I say it's time to redefine science. We should not be looking for only the best naturalistic explanation, but the best explanation, period. And intelligent design is the explanation that's most in conformity with how the world works. " The Case for a Creator (2004) p.243

This is nonsense and has nothing to do with Biology.

...and the above quote is particularly pertinent for any Darwinists out there who admit that they couldn't define or recognise information .... even if it 'jumped up and bit them' in the you-know-what!!!:eek::eek::)

....they even admit that life has the 'appearance of design' ... but then the reality of a Designer's existence makes them recoil in denial!!!!

....life looks like it was designed, behaves as if it was designed ... and has no other plausible explantion for it's existence ... other than that it WAS designed
....I'd say that was pretty conclusive proof that life WAS designed !!!!:D:D

Evolution is the plausible explanation.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....naked DENIAL!!!!:eek::D:pac:

Gimme a break - those pictures look nothing like 'anatomically correct' dinosaurs other than they have legs and a head. :rolleyes: When small child does it, it's an active imagination; when a medieval artist does it, it's because he saw a LIVING dinosaur. :rolleyes:

This is even more pathetic than usual.

kiffer

Very interesting... I wonder why they didn't bother taking better pictures... ones that weren't so bright at the center and dark round the edges...



my guess is this one is a badly drawn crocodile, or may be a Hippo with a silly tail. (see attached doodle, and also http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast146.htm)...

much like this is a badly drawn medieval dolphin...
http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast284.htm

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Gimme a break - those pictures look nothing like 'anatomically correct' dinosaurs other than they have legs and a head. :rolleyes:

....more DENIAL in the face of the evidence!!!

2Scoops wrote: »

When small child does it, (draws a Dinosaur) it's an active imagination; when a medieval artist does it, it's because he saw a LIVING dinosaur. :rolleyes:

...when a child draws a Dinosaur it ISN'T a result of their imagination...they are remembering ACTUAL drawings / video images of reconstructed Dinosaurs!!!!
....a Medieval Artist could only draw an anatomically correct Dinosaur if they or somebody else had also ACTUALLY seen one!!!

2Scoops wrote: »

This is even more pathetic than usual.

touché!!!!:pac::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...if that is the case, then you are not going to get much further that ONE critical Amino Acid Sequence about 80 Amino Acids long ... and to do so will require ALL of the time and matter in the supposed Big Bang Universe!!!!

Morbert
There is no evidence for this assertion.

....unfortunately, for the Materialists the maths DO stack up...and amazing as it may seem, it WOULD take the frenzied activity of ALL of the matter and time in the supposed Big Bang Universe to produce a specific SEQUENCE for one paltry 100 Amino Acid sequence using non-intelligently directed processes...something that a seven year old could accomplish at will in 10 minutes!!!!!:):eek::D

....not surprised that some Evolutionists are becoming embarassed to call themselves Evolutionists!!!:D:eek:

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....if Non-random selection of random mutations worked, every factory would simply churn out random junk and then select useful product from it ... but it doesn't work ... because it would ALL be junk ... with practically NO functionally useful product ... and that is why factories use precisely (and intelligently) designed systems to deliver precisely (and intelligently) designed product ... ditto with living proccesses!!


Morbert
Living processes reproduce. So it is not "ditto".

Factories DO ALSO reproduce .... product from the master designs with which they work. All defective product is sold off as 'seconds' or scrapped altogether.
Occasionally, for example, in a pottery, a 'crooked jug' may be accidentally produced which looks attractive (in a 'funky' kind of way) and this could lead to a decision to start commercial production of this 'mistake'...but any further 'mistake' will usually reduce functionality to the point where it will be scrapped rather than sold!!!!
Also, the accidentially produced jug REQUIRES the intelligently designed machinery and processes in the factory for its reproduction!!!

ditto with life!!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
The great Dr Stephen Meyer has the following words of wisdom for all of the 'died in the wool' Darwinists out there:-

"We've learned a lot about biology since the (American) Civil War (in 1860). Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working. Explanations from the era of the steamboat are no longer adequate to explain the biological world of the information age." ....Darwinist explantions are inadequate .... but this doesn't stop Evolutionists trying ...I guess, Evolution still 'floats' their (steam) boats!!!!

"Darwinists say they're under some sort of epistemological obligation to continue trying, because to invoke design would be to give up on science. Well, I say it's time to redefine science. We should not be looking for only the best naturalistic explanation, but the best explanation, period. And intelligent design is the explanation that's most in conformity with how the world works. " The Case for a Creator (2004) p.243


Morbert
This is nonsense and has nothing to do with Biology.

...it certainly has EVERYTHING to do with Darwinism...which I accept HAS almost nothing to do with MODERN Biology!!!:pac::):eek:

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...and the above quote is particularly pertinent for any Darwinists out there who admit that they couldn't define or recognise information .... even if it 'jumped up and bit them' in the you-know-what!!!

....they even admit that life has the 'appearance of design' ... but then the reality of a Designer's existence makes them recoil in denial!!!!

....life looks like it was designed, behaves as if it was designed ... and has no other plausible explantion for it's existence ... other than that it WAS designed
....I'd say that was pretty conclusive proof that life WAS designed !!!!


Morbert
Evolution is the plausible explanation.

....yes, I guess that you can dream on in your very own 'steamboat'...of DENIAL .... AKA Darwinian Evolution!!!!:):eek::D

J C

kiffer wrote: »

Very interesting... I wonder why they didn't bother taking better pictures... ones that weren't so bright at the center and dark round the edges...



my guess is this one is a badly drawn crocodile, or may be a Hippo with a silly tail. (see attached doodle, and also http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast146.htm)...

much like this is a badly drawn medieval dolphin...
http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast284.htm

....stop whinging ... and leave the denial at home!!!!:eek::eek::D:)

kiffer

J C wrote: »

....stop whinging ... and leave the denial at home!!!!:eek::eek::D:)

Am I whinging? It's not that hard to photograph things so that you can see the whole area clearly.

Denial? Of what? That an unknown medievil artist engraved some ambiguous lines?
Have you read descriptions of animals from those times? Weasels give birth out their ears(left ear for female babies, right for male) and mate through their mouths, dolphins kill crocodiles with the sharp fins on their backs.

The catobleps has the body of an ox, thick legs, the head of a hog, a neck like an empty intestine... Its gaze and/or breath can kill or turn you to stone, but its weak neck means it must look down almost all of the time...
Turns out it's probably a worthog.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

....unfortunately, for the Materialists the maths DO stack up...and amazing as it may seem, it WOULD take the frenzied activity of ALL of the matter and time in the supposed Big Bang Universe to produce a specific SEQUENCE for one paltry 100 Amino Acid sequence using non-intelligently directed processes...something that a seven year old could accomplish at will in 10 minutes!!!!!:):eek::D

There is no evidence for the above assertion. Please provide evidence or the above paragraph will be disregarded by everyone as nonsense.

Factories DO ALSO reproduce .... product from the master designs with which they work. All defective product is sold off as 'seconds' or scrapped altogether.
Occasionally, for example, in a pottery, a 'crooked jug' may be accidentally produced which looks attractive (in a 'funky' kind of way) and this could lead to a decision to start commercial production of this 'mistake'...but any further 'mistake' will usually reduce functionality to the point where it will be scrapped rather than sold!!!!
Also, the accidentially produced jug REQUIRES the intelligently designed machinery and processes in the factory for its reproduction!!!

ditto with life!!!!

Factories don't REproduce; they don't produce other factories. They are intelligently designed. Life reproduces.

...it certainly has EVERYTHING to do with Darwinism...which I accept HAS almost nothing to do with MODERN Biology!!!:pac::):eek:

Here is an example of something that is not nonsense and has everything to do with biology.
http://jbiol.com/

....yes, I guess that you can dream on in your very own 'steamboat'...of DENIAL .... AKA Darwinian Evolution!!!!:):eek::D

I am not in denial.

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

....stop whinging ... and leave the denial at home!!!!:eek::eek::D:)

seriously....dinosaurs in medievel times....you're either retarded or just doing this for a laugh right? Is it not true the whole notion of fire breathing dragons and other mythical monsters came from people finding fossilised dinosaur bones? so it's pretty normal to find something like this surely? Still, the idea of Dino-riders actually existing would have been cool

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

....so you CAN'T define genetic information then!!!!

No, I'm saying you can't.

....and you are now claiming that there is NO SELECTION involved in Evolution!!!

No, I'm saying there's no selection involved in your metaphor. I'm working under the assumption that no-one can be stupid enough to make the mistake that I was talking about evolution, and ask you, again (to presumably no avail) to stop lying.

I'd say it was 'game set and match' for Creation Science ... all the way!!!!

Well, yes, but just because you'd say it doesn't make it true.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

And will there be a single creation science publication between now and then? :pac:

There are many now.

Of course, some people think creation science deals with how God initially made everything, rather than how His initial creation developed since its perfect and mature origin. You know - diversification of kinds, Flood geology, investigation of dating techniques, etc.

Some creation science publications:
Answers Research Journal
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

Journal of Creation
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/

Creation Research Society Quarterly
http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html

ORIGINS
http://www.grisda.org/origins/index.htm

The Institute for Creation Research provides on-line research articles, eg:
THE SANDS OF TIME: A BIBLICAL MODEL OF DEEP SEA-FLOOR SEDIMENTATION
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r01/

As does BSG: A Creation Biology Study Group
http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36813

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Where do you find a record of the ear arising from evolving a previous set of bone and muscle to perform a new function?
Ok, let me use my powerful, er, powers of prophecy to see how this is going to go

I'm going to say "In the fossil record"

You are going to say "I don't accept the fossil record as being a time line of evolution, it simply proves that other animals with similar ear structure existed in the past, not that evolved into each other"

I'm going to say "I don't care"

You are going to say "Good, and I don't care that you don't care"

So, saved us a bit of time there.

Yes, thank you. Finding other animals with a similar ear structure could be explained scientifically by either of those options. Why do you think yours is self-evidently the cause? I have Divine revelation informing my case. You have - evolutionary dogma?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That is your assumption - as if you understand all the complexity of the ear.
And you understand it well enough to say that it could not ever have been designed better than it is now ... ?

No, for I insist it was designed better than it is now. But even today's imperfect ear is still an amazing structure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Now we know so much more of its complexity than then. How much more may we know in 10 years?
So you are going to abandon Creationism for ten years until we know that the ear could not have been designed any better? Or perhaps 100 years?

I suspect not.

No, for I know by Divine revelation why the ear is both so magnificently complex and yet not perfect. You are the one with the problem of accounting for its magnificent complexity. The more science discovers of complexity, the more laughable evolution appears. :pac:

wolfsbane

For those of you interested in Theistic Evolution, here's an interesting review of TE author Denis Alexander's book Creation of evolution: Do we have to choose?, Monarch Books, Oxford, 2008:


http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/writings/creation-or-evolution-dr-denis-alexander/index.php/intro

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

There are many now.

Of course, some people think creation science deals with how God initially made everything, rather than how His initial creation developed since its perfect and mature origin. You know - diversification of kinds, Flood geology, investigation of dating techniques, etc.

Some creation science publications:
Answers Research Journal
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

Journal of Creation
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/

Creation Research Society Quarterly
http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html

ORIGINS
http://www.grisda.org/origins/index.htm

The Institute for Creation Research provides on-line research articles, eg:
THE SANDS OF TIME: A BIBLICAL MODEL OF DEEP SEA-FLOOR SEDIMENTATION
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r01/

As does BSG: A Creation Biology Study Group
http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36813

These aren't scientific journals/publications.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Finding other animals with a similar ear structure could be explained scientifically by either of those options. Why do you think yours is self-evidently the cause? I have Divine revelation informing my case. You have - evolutionary dogma?

Evolution predicts the distribution of life we find in the fossil record.

No, for I know by Divine revelation why the ear is both so magnificently complex and yet not perfect. You are the one with the problem of accounting for its magnificent complexity. The more science discovers of complexity, the more laughable evolution appears. :pac:

Evolution accounts for complexity.

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have Divine revelation informing my case. You have - evolutionary dogma?

He has something which stands up to scruting. You are clinging to a vessel that sinks a bit lower with every scientific discovery.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, for I insist it was designed better than it is now. But even today's imperfect ear is still an amazing structure.

So what happened? How did the ear devolve? Punishment for sin? It might be worth bearing in mind that there is no such thing as a perfect structure, the ear can merely adapt as best it can over years of natural selection to its contemporaneous environment.

wolfsbane wrote:

The more science discovers of complexity, the more laughable evolution appears. :pac:

Throw in a few more capital letters and exclamation marks and you're practically the new J_C. Evolution over the course of this thread before our very eyes. You saw how J_C's resilient refusal to accept facts and reasonable explanations meant he could survive on this thread and have adapted likewise to confer a survival advantage on yourself. Your genetic material is safe

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

These aren't scientific journals/publications.

The scientists who publish in them disagree with you.

What you actually mean is These aren't scientific journals/publications that agree with the current consensus on evolution For you that means Not scientific.

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote: »

The scientists who publish in them disagree with you.

What you actually mean is These aren't scientific journals/publications that agree with the current consensus on evolution For you that means Not scientific.

On a quick rundown of those articles, it is quite clear that they are no scientific. Not only are they not scientific, they are actively rejecting evidence to fit their agenda. To quote but one example, the fascinating topic of the Origin of Oil in the Answers Journal. In this article some guy mentions the problem of how oil could form within such a short amount of time, given that the world is 6000 years old, saying that an alternative theory is needed. He then goes on to promote his view that it was formed by god and then moved around a bit during the Great Flood. He has no evidence for this, it merely seems to make sense to him in the context of his religion.


As for the Creation Research Society, I must admit I switched off a bit when i read the boastful line "peer-reviewed by degreed scientists". Something about that sentence just isn't right.

If you can't see how obviously pointless this kind of "scientific" reasoning is, then you don't understand what is science and what is random conjecture to fit in with established beliefs that have no foundation.