Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Quote Bluewolf
There's more to it (Evolution) than "natural selection" iirc, but yes, abiogenesis is a different matter.
Abiogenesis certainly IS a different matter – for a start, it is in contradiction of the Biological Law of Biogenesis!!!
Quote Bluewolf
Originally Posted by J C
I would also like to inform you that both Intelligent Design and Creation Science can take you to the next stage (of explaining how all of the purposeful tightly specified information present in all of life arose).
That it must have had a creator?
No, not that it MUST – but that it DID have a Creator!!
Quote Scofflaw
neither Creationist nor Evolutionist Geologists use Flood Geology. Why is that, do you think?
They don’t use Evolutionary Geology either!!!
They actually just use GEOLOGY!!!
Quote Scofflaw
He (God) could perhaps have provided more (oil), then.
Maybe He knows more than us about how long we will need oil!!!
Quote Scofflaw
That's certainly one theory of oil origin. However, it may not be correct, and it may not apply to all oil. And the alternate model of oil origin is also gradualist….
Even the Creationists who work in petroleum geology have to use evolutionist geology
Which “evolutionist geology” do they use?
Is it the first gradualist model or the alternate model of oil origin, which is also supposed to be gradualist?
I can tell you that it is NEITHER – it is just ORDINARY Geology!!!!0 -
I sincerely doubt there's any more proof for this than trying to demonstrate ignorance...J C wrote:No, not that it MUST – but that it DID have a Creator!!0 -
J C wrote:Abiogenesis certainly IS a different matter – for a start, it is in contradiction of the Biological Law of Biogenesis!!!
Rubbish. There is no such "Law". Do stop making things up to suit yourself.J C wrote:Quote Scofflaw
neither Creationist nor Evolutionist Geologists use Flood Geology. Why is that, do you think?
They don’t use Evolutionary Geology either!!!
They actually just use GEOLOGY!!!
Riiight. Now I seem to remember you (and others) arguing quite fervently about how the Flood "really happened". A world-wide catastophic Flood, for which there is no geological evidence (according to "Evolutionary" geology). And we, on the other hand, were putting forward a model of Geology that:
a. has no worldwide Flood, thus denying the literal interpretation of Genesis
b. dates things to millions of years, thus denying the literal interpretation of Genesis
c. uses a discipline called Palaeontology, which is essentially the study of Evolution, to date rocks and determine their relation to each other, requiring evolution
And now you say there's only one Geology? Hmmm? How does your Flood reconcile with this one Geology? I think you think you're avoiding the question, but actually you're back-pedalling, aren't you?J C wrote:Quote Scofflaw
That's certainly one theory of oil origin. However, it may not be correct, and it may not apply to all oil. And the alternate model of oil origin is also gradualist….
Even the Creationists who work in petroleum geology have to use evolutionist geology
Which “evolutionist geology” do they use?
Is it the first gradualist model or the alternate model of oil origin, which is also supposed to be gradualist?
I can tell you that it is NEITHER – it is just ORDINARY Geology!!!!
See above. JC, you're back-pedalling so fast anyone would mistake you for an Old Earth Creationist!
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
> However, the more I understand Evolution – the less I believe in it!!
Ah, now, JC, don't go backwards on me when we're just getting somewhere! You said yesterday that you accepted Natural Selection and that's all that evolution is! Nothing more and nothing less. You've got it in one -- you're an evolutionist -- sincere congratulations! It wasn't that difficult to make the switch from creationism to evolutionism, now, was it?0 -
Quote Bluewolf
Originally Posted by J C
Evolution is postulated as an information INCREASING mechanism. If Evolution existed then by repeatedly breeding Poodles you should get a Wolf or maybe even a Sheep!!!
JC, let's not get into arguing with straw men, please?
I wasn’t arguing about straw men – my argument was based on the reality that highly selected pedigree animals don’t outbreed – which shouldn’t be the case if Evolutionary mechanisms exist that spontaneously provide NEW genetic information.0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:Quote Bluewolf
Originally Posted by J C
Evolution is postulated as an information INCREASING mechanism. If Evolution existed then by repeatedly breeding Poodles you should get a Wolf or maybe even a Sheep!!!
JC, let's not get into arguing with straw men, please?
I wasn’t arguing about straw men – my argument was based on the reality that highly selected pedigree animals don’t outbreed – which shouldn’t be the case if Evolutionary mechanisms exist that spontaneously provide NEW genetic information.
Well, let's see. There's little argument that dogs descend from wolves, and they can still interbreed, despite a probable time lapse of 17,000 years. I'm afraid your chosen timescale doesn't really work for you there - it may be a bit short. Perhaps evolutionary timescales are required!
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
Quote Scofflaw
Originally Posted by J C
Abiogenesis certainly IS a different matter – for a start, it is in contradiction of the Biological Law of Biogenesis!!!]
Rubbish. There is no such "Law". Do stop making things up to suit yourself.
Please consult any Biologist of your acquaintance – and I’m sure that they will confirm the existence of this LAW of Biology.
FYI it was first proposed by Louis Pasteur and accepted as a Law of Biology during the late 19th Century. The fact that it is the ONLY extant Law of Biology means that every qualified Biologist SHOULD be aware of it !!!
Quote Scofflaw
Riiight. Now I seem to remember you (and others) arguing quite fervently about how the Flood "really happened". A world-wide catastophic Flood, for which there is no geological evidence (according to "Evolutionary" geology). And we, on the other hand, were putting forward a model of Geology that:
a. has no worldwide Flood, thus denying the literal interpretation of Genesis
b. dates things to millions of years, thus denying the literal interpretation of Genesis
c. uses a discipline called Palaeontology, which is essentially the study of Evolution, to date rocks and determine their relation to each other, requiring evolution
And now you say there's only one Geology? Hmmm? How does your Flood reconcile with this one Geology? I think you think you're avoiding the question, but actually you're back-pedalling, aren't you?………………..
See above. JC, you're back-pedalling so fast anyone would mistake you for an Old Earth Creationist!
The question I was addressing related to Petroleum Geology.
I stated my belief that Mineral Oil reserves DIDN’T have a biological origin. I also said that it may be a natural resource that is part of God’s Created Bounty, which He has made available as part of His patrimony to Mankind.
The creation of oil therefore probably pre-dated the ‘Flood’ – and so 'Flood Geology' doesn’t apply to it – other than, the rupture of oil deposits by the ‘Flood’ processes.
Quote Robin
Ah, now, JC, don't go backwards on me when we're just getting somewhere! You said yesterday that you accepted Natural Selection and that's all that evolution is! Nothing more and nothing less.
Natural Selection selecting from existing genetic information – YES.
Evolution generating new genetic information - NO.0 -
J C wrote:Quote Scofflaw
Originally Posted by J C
Abiogenesis certainly IS a different matter – for a start, it is in contradiction of the Biological Law of Biogenesis!!!]
Rubbish. There is no such "Law". Do stop making things up to suit yourself.
Please consult any Biologist of your acquaintance – and I’m sure that they will confirm the existence of this LAW of Biology.
FYI it was first proposed by Louis Pasteur and accepted as a Law of Biology during the late 19th Century. The fact that it is the ONLY extant Law of Biology means that every qualified Biologist SHOULD be aware of it !!!
Sorry - I should have been more clear. Insofar as this is a Law, it applies to complex life. Pasteur's experiments disproved "spontaneous generation", which was the creationist theory that even complex life (mice, maggots, etc) arose spontaneously from non-living matter. You are claiming that it "outlaws" the straw-man "Muck to Man Evolution" which you made up, but really, 19th century science should not really be taken as a guide to modern scientific thought, I'm afraid.
Tell you what - I modify my comment above to "do stop misinterpreting things to suit yourself".J C wrote:Quote Scofflaw
Riiight. Now I seem to remember you (and others) arguing quite fervently about how the Flood "really happened". A world-wide catastophic Flood, for which there is no geological evidence (according to "Evolutionary" geology). And we, on the other hand, were putting forward a model of Geology that:
a. has no worldwide Flood, thus denying the literal interpretation of Genesis
b. dates things to millions of years, thus denying the literal interpretation of Genesis
c. uses a discipline called Palaeontology, which is essentially the study of Evolution, to date rocks and determine their relation to each other, requiring evolution
And now you say there's only one Geology? Hmmm? How does your Flood reconcile with this one Geology? I think you think you're avoiding the question, but actually you're back-pedalling, aren't you?………………..
See above. JC, you're back-pedalling so fast anyone would mistake you for an Old Earth Creationist!
The question I was addressing related to Petroleum Geology.
I stated my belief that Mineral Oil reserves DIDN’T have a biological origin. I also said that it may be a natural resource that is part of God’s Created Bounty, which He has made available as part of His patrimony to Mankind.
The creation of oil therefore probably pre-dated the ‘Flood’ – and so 'Flood Geology' doesn’t apply to it – other than, perhaps the formation of ‘oil shales and sands’ when some oil deposits were ruptured by the ‘Flood’ processes.
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. No, no, I'm afraid you not only have the wrong end of the stick, but possibly not a stick at all. Petroleum geology is not magically separate from the rest of geology. Exactly the same principles of stratigraphy, palaeontology, structural geology, sedimentology, etc etc, all apply to petroleum geology. Oil and gas are found in all kinds of sedimentary settings, so I'm afraid you can't just duck out by adopting a possible (disputed) abiogenetic theory for oil and waving your hands.
On the other hand, I am quite deeply amused by your espousal of the "deep hot oil" theory, since it involves the production of some quite large organic molecules from inorganic material. Next step, abiogenesis!
You're talking through your hat, as they say - do you actually know anything about the topic? Flood geology is not used in the oil industry, because it doesn't work. It doesn't work because Genesis is NOT a scientifically accurate account of the world. Sorry.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
> Natural Selection selecting from existing genetic information – YES.
Keep it up! Keep thinking about it! I realise that it's a complete turnaround from what you were writing last year and earlier this year, but you really are on the right track at last!
Three creationists in a fortnight showing understandings of things they never understood before -- I couldn't have expected it, and it's great to see!
Yet again, well done guys!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
*Groan*J C wrote:I stated my belief that Mineral Oil reserves DIDN’T have a biological origin. I also said that it may be a natural resource that is part of God’s Created Bounty, which He has made available as part of His patrimony to Mankind.
This is why it is pointless to argue science with a deeply religious person, be they Catholic, Muslim or a member of the CoS. As soon as they run into something they don't want to accept they can simply offer up the classic "God did it" answer.
How do we explain the dinosars - "God put them there to test our faith"
How do we explain the oil coal and gas - "God put it there to reward our faith"
How do we explain evolution - "God must have started it to create us"
Complete nonsense, so you wonder what is the point in arguing against that position :rolleyes:0 -
Wow! Things are getting interesting!
Two comments:
1) Back in 2002 I had the pleasure of lunch with Professor Walter J. Veith in Cape Town. As the head of one of the largest evolutionist faculities prior to this, his story of how God changed his heart is absorbing to say the least. Secondly he does look years younger than his calendar years due to the diets expounded on his web page.
Dont be put off by the fact that he is a 7th Day Adventist (I am not but would be honoured to be one as a minimal standard). Read the issues on amazingdiscoveries.org and then comment.
Look at the Mount St Helens volcanic eruption and how that changed the lives of many evolutionists - there are many postings on the web.
2) Who says (gathered from the posts) that you (both sides) arent both half right? Who says Adam & Eve were the first humans - the KJV bible doesnt! In fact it can be intepreted as just the opposite for good reason!
This 7 - 10000 year time frame used by some, is just the period between the flood (evidence on the NASA site) and present day - not the time since earth was created!
Read Genesis properly.
In conclusion the sarcastic tones used in some of the posts belittle the message. Try these two approaches and then later we can look at the fulfilment of OT prophecies.
Now there are three sides?0 -
MOGSA wrote:Read the issues on amazingdiscoveries.org and then comment.
I have seen it before and scientifically it is basically nonsense, just repeating the same old non-scientific Creationist "interpretation" of things like the fossil record and sediment processes.0 -
> Professor Walter J. Veith in Cape Town. As the head of one of the
> largest evolutionist faculities prior to this
According to this page, Veith was Head of Zoology for less than one term, before he stepped sideways into the university's Physiology department from which he retired two years or so later.
As for amazingdiscoveries? Well, it's a absolutely standard rehash of creationist text, a bit more breathless than most, but with lots of helpful sidebars where the credit-card-enabled creationist can buy from a wide range of books, videos, DVD's, "Star Juice Extracters" and so on, which are on offer. There's also copious links to his health site (lots more amazing!! items on sale) where you can learn that "every potato is a power pack, brimming with God's goodness", which is good news to us potato-munching Paddys, I suppose!0 -
Isnt this typical? You attack the man's integrity without knowing the man or the basis for his comparisons. I read the links provided and clearer hostility you would find difficult to come by.
Of course, you cant see the videos without paying for them and this somewhat dilutes my approach.
I am a layman when it comes to the subject you guys debate (biology, other sciences etc) but I know that the Mt St Helens eruption showed that all the things I had read about or been told (layers of matter take millions of years to accumulate, trees without branches swept away in some giaganitc flood also take millions of years to petrify etc) happened in a few minutes. All this is well documented and this particular incident showed him, as an evolutionist, that what was thought to take millions of years, took a few minutes - right in a very public place, in front of him as a privileged member of the invited scientific community!
I too have issues with him such as always taking the extreme view, rather than the middle road. I watched all 16 of his 90min videos with a critical eye and certainly did not accept each and every hypothesis presented. But the five that I did accept are now well published and irrefutable.
His own youthfulness are a testimony to his actual field of research and practices. [http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/about_walterveith.htm]
Now please comment/feedback on the other 80% of my statements because it appears that you were too hasty in your attempt to discredit a small part of them.0 -
You have answered wisely. You are not far from the kingdom of God.J C wrote:The short answer is that it would – if it did!!
Does Genesis say the earth was created in six days? I know creationists read it that way, but does Genesis actually say that? When I read Genesis, what I see are great works of creation followed by the numbered days. We are not told how long the works of creation are, but they seem to contains other days, seasons and years. Trees grow and bear fruit. Fish and animals are fruitful and multiply. There is nothing to say this all happened in six 24 hour days.The slightly longer answer is as follows:-
Creationists argue that the Hebrew word for Day “Yom” (when it is accompanied by a number, as in first, second, etc.) is ALWAYS a literal day EVERYWHERE else in the Bible and so there is no reason to believe that it is not a 24 HOUR day in Genesis 1 as well.
Even if you read the days as referring to the creative periods, Genesis uses the word day in three or four different ways in the first two chapters. Why do the six numbered days have to be 24 hour days? Sure when numbers are used with day it usually means literal days, but then throughout the bible the majority of days are literal. The number of times it is used figuratively is fairly small so there is no reason why any other cases would have to occur with a number. If you want to produce a statistical rule to say day occurring with a number is always literal not figurative, you would need a much bigger sample of figurative days. You don't have them and there is nothing in Hebrew grammar that says days with a number have to be literal. What you do have is that days with a number usually occur in human narrative and laws concerning human behaviour. Figurative days are much more common describing the actions of God, for example prophecy. We read of 'the day of the Lord' or 'the day of vengeance'. Moses tells us in Psalm 90:4 a thousand years in Your eyes are as a day, yesterday, when it passes, and as a watch in the night. Genesis 1 is describing God's work of creation. There were no humans around until the very end.
But in fact numbers are used with days when the meaning is figurative. Ezek 4:5 For I assign to you a number of days, 390 days, equal to the number of the years of their punishment. So long shall you bear the punishment of the house of Israel. 6 And when you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side, and bear the punishment of the house of Judah. Forty days I assign you, a day for each year. Numbered days with a figurative meaning. The writer of Hebrews interpreted God's seventh day rest as a rest that is still going on and we can enter into it. Heb 4:4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works." 5 And again in this passage he said, "They shall not enter my rest." 6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it... 10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.
Do you realise Moses used evening and morning metaphorically a couple of verses after telling us about the Lord's view of a day being vastly different from ours in Psalm 90?Equally, they argue, that Genesis 1 refers to ‘evening and morning’ in relation to ALL SIX DAYS of Creation – again indicating that these were real 24 HOUR days because an ‘evening’ or a ‘morning’ is completely meaningless if the DAYS of Creation were actually EONS of Evolutionary Time.
True, but then again, we are not God. Do you realise Exodus uses a huge anthropomorphic metaphor comparing God's creation week to our working week? It describes God as though he were a human worker exhausted after a hard week's labour, who is refreshed after he has a rest.Exodus 20:11 re-emphasises that the basis for the 7 day working week is the 7 day Creation Week – just in case anybody missed the point in Genesis 1 that the Days of Creation were 24 hour days.
The “Theistic Evolutionary” concept of a “Creation Week” lasting 7,000 million year is certainly quite a novelty!!! I would hate to be waiting for the weekend to come around if an Evolutionary time-frame applied to our working week!!
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.
As far as I know these are the only two verses in the whole bible that mention God creating the world in six days. Not only is there nothing to suggest God's days are literal days here, the statement is actually part of a metaphor. Remember it was the Moses the author of Genesis and Exodus who wrote Psalm 90 and starting with a description of the creation goes on to tell us not to take God's days literally.
Actually unless you can produce evidence to show the speed of light has decreased drastically and that radioactive decay was much faster in the past, unless you can show how the earth would have dissipated the excess heat from the much faster decay of radionuclides without melting, the evidence is that the earth is billions of years old and light from distant galaxies has travelling even longer.Of course, God COULD create the Universe and all living organisms in 6 seconds, in 6 days or over 6 billion years. He has told us that it was 6 days – and all observed phenomena support a rapid Creation and a young Earth. That is good enough for me – until somebody shows me repeatably observable evidence i.e. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to the contrary.
I believe in God and I believe he is intelligent ( I watch West Wing.) But I think evolution is an amazingly clever design process that was God's plan that he put in place when he created the universe with its laws of physics, chemistry and maths. But I think ID with its confusion between 'information' in DNA and intelligence based information, is bad science. Just because intelligence can encode information, it doesn't mean that information that is the result of random variations in DNA had been encoded directly by an intelligence. The structure of a snowflake is information too, information that tells the next water molecule to condense on it where it can and cannot go. Yes God is ultimately sovereign over the universe, but he is the one who created the laws of physics and meteorology and I believe he lets them generate the information we find in each snowflake.Information is the virtual expression of INTELLIGENCE using an encoded language that is capable of being decoded by the recipient. It can be as simple as saying ‘I love you’ or as complex as a computer programme or the DNA code....
Do you not believe that God had any hand act or part in Evolution – or do you think that God ISN’T intelligent?
Mutations are actually quite common. Most are harmless. The more harmful ones are quickly dropped from the gene pool as you point out. But it is simply an article of YEC faith rather than science to say that there are no beneficial mutations.
Of course the human genome is a lot more stable than MS Windows, but as you say Windows is only likely to crash if your change it at random. Every now an again, though quite rarely, you would get a useful change, another colour, another size for the windows. What natural selection does is get rid of that bad changes that crash the system and keeps the useful ones. You get another option to choose from, an increase in diversity.
Severe deformities and embryonic death are usually the result of mutation. But the reverse is not true. Most mutations are harmless and some are beneficial like resistance to atherosclerosis or immunity to HIV.
So what did plant breeders do in the 1950s when they hit the selection wall? They started blasting their seeds with radiation. Very successfully too. That shouldn't work if creation science was right.These constraints also cause the so-called ‘genetic selection wall’ that animal and plant breeders rapidly come up against when intensively selecting for single traits. This ‘selection wall’ ALSO constrains how much change Natural Selection can ultimately achieve within any particular ‘kind’.
How much diversity was there in the two wolves that trotted off the ark? Two animals do not give you a very big gene pool, yet according to YEC all the diversity we see among dogs and wolves today came from just those two. There certainly must have been an increase in genetic information sometime in the past.Natural Selection SELECTS – i.e. it discards certain genetic combinations and keeps others. This process is objectively SUBTRACTIVE, in that the discarded genetic combinations may contain other valuable genetic information that may also be permanently lost. That is one of the reasons why genetic diversity disappears so fast when a population is subjected to high unrelenting selection pressure. Pedigree animals provide a perfect illustration – a Poodle is an example of extreme Artificial Selection – to the point where it has practically lost ALL genetic diversity. If you breed a pedigree Poodle with another pedigree Poodle – you invariably get a Poodle.
Incidentally dogs will never evolve into anything other than a dog. Of course the first vertebrates never evolved into anything but vertebrates. The first mammals never evolved into anything but mammals, and apes never evolved into anything other than apes.
Ook
Assyrian0 -
Scofflaw said:
Medieval Europe as a God-fearing society? I think not. The wickedness and corruption of the dominant church of that time is notorious. It was not confined to popes like Borgia, but characterized the leadership. Such examples to the flock no doubt led many to despise religion in the manner of many young people today. Others who still feared the system had their morality loosened by the practice of buying indulgences for the sins they practiced. Like today, a minority of godly leaders and their flocks did live out the Biblical mandate. The majority were practical atheists, living as if God did not exist or was as amoral as themselves.And would you like to remind us again why it is that lots of church-going correlates positively with a whole range of bad social indicators? You might also like to explain the "hoodies" of previous generations and eras - for example, why was the crime-rate higher in Medieval Europe than now, despite the greater prevalence of faith? They weren't evolutionists, surely?
I agree. But selfishness is consistent with atheism, not with Christianity. Evolutionary theory falsifies Christianity and establishes the unaccountable individual.Come on - "the moral basis of the hedonist hoods of this generation" is the same as ever - selfishness.
It doesn't. The theory is true or not, regardless of the moral consequences.Their new excuse may be "evolution", but I don't see what that can possibly have to do with the validity of a scientific theory.
I have no problem dealing with the consequencies of atheism. It was robindch who raised the question of morality arising from one's beliefs, Having lied to millions in the USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other countries with existing or growing social problems caused by religious fundamentalism,To be honest, if evolution is correct (which is a scientific discussion), then it's up to you as a Christian to work with the consequences. Wishing it away by claiming a fairy-tale is just burying your head in the sand rather than facing up to your responsibilities.You might also consider the viciousness of public hypocrisy, and the negative consequences of a rigid church-mandated morality. Perhaps you should consider the priestly child-abuse scandals and the Magdalene laundries, the wasted lives of those who don't "fit in", and the dirty little crimes of the pious.
I certainly agree that false religion throws up much hidden wickedness. But it is not the moral teachings of the institution that cause the wickedness - it is the evil hearts of those who falsely profess the doctrines.
Things today are not like Medieval times, when the Roman church was so powerful it didn't need to do any cover-up. The vicious and immoral practices of the institution were carefully concealed over the past century or so. Every exposure of them by former priests or nuns was condemned as mere anti-Catholic bigotry. But God has brought some of this to light and no doubt more is to follow. The cries of the oppressed and abused are being heard. That is little comfort for those who lived and died without being delivered - but their case will be heard before the Judge on that Day when all will give account for their actions.
I think I can. Where does the sense of community come from? From one's world-view. It is what I believe about who I am and why I am here that determines my response to my neighbours. Once I believe there is no real right or wrong, only what is right for me, then community spirit is whatever I want to make it. If I find that robbery will probably profit me in the long-run ( little chance of being caught; little chance of earning so much in any job I'm likely to get) then it becomes a moral option for me. I've ministered to criminals in prison who considered themselves just as moral as the rest of us. They had a right to house-break and steal other's property - it was their job.Perhaps, in fact, you would like to prove that the loss of "public morality" actually relates to a decline in belief, as opposed to a decline in community?
Or perhaps you can't?0 -
Assyrian said:
Death became an enemy the moment it touched us. Yes, God created this enemy. He did so as a punishment for our evil, not as a 'very good' part of life. Death for His people and the animal kingdom will cease at the Last Day. It will continue in its spiritual form forever for the wicked, men and angels.When do you think death became the enemy, or do you think God created an enemy?So according to Genesis Adam didn't actually have dominion over everything, he had to subdue it first. Given that he lived in a garden in the middle east, he couldn't have subdued much of it before he sinned. So why did the rest of creation fall? Is there any scriptural basis for saying creation was cursed because man had dominion over it when he sinned, or is this just another human tradition?
His mandate was to subdue the earth to his tastes, to order it, to tend and cultivate it. He was also given dominion over all other creatures. That didn't mean they were in rebellion against him. No more than God having dominion over the holy angels means they were once in rebelion against him.
There is direct Scripture for the ground being cursed for man's sin. And the Rom.8:20 quote strongly supports the fall of the animals with Adam. Otherwise it is just a throwaway comment, something God did sometime without any explanation or connection to man's fall.
OK, but the lesser flows from the greater. The real problem for you is the text at least tells us that human death did not occur before the Fall. How does that fit in with the evolutionary scenario?These passages are talking about human death not animals
Same reason as before, they are part of man's dominion. They fell with him, not morally but in behaviour and consequences.Now does the YEC view of God cursing the animals in the fall fit into this picture? Not only are the animal allowed live for years and years after being cursed, according to YECs they not only lose their lives, eternal life actually, but they are subject to torture of lives racked with pain, suffering and disease before their death. Why do you think God ordered the torture of animals because of man's sin?
You are tyring to force the Psalmist to refer only to events at the Creation, but he evidently is celebrating God's work both then and what we enjoy of it now. Surely 'ships' is a key to seeing it cannot speak only of the Creation event? Or do you hold that God created ships when He created Man?Given that Psalm 104 is based on the creation account in Gen 1 following the order of creation days, do you think this means you should change the way you read the account in Genesis? An inspired Psalmist could have a clearer understanding of how to interpret scripture than you do.
That is a most unnatural reading. God specifically grants every living thing as food for Man - if that were already the case, why say it?God is certainly introducing a new law forbidding eating blood, but is he giving man permission to eat meat for the first time, or reinstituting an old permission or practice based on having given man dominion in Genesis 1? 'I have given you all things' is in the perfect tense.
Adaption certainly will have led to being better fitted to meat. But that says nothing about how they were originally.I don't think Cain had to kill his brother, but predators like lions and killer whales did not just have to resort to predation, they were designed to be highly efficient predators and do not actually survive very well on a vegetarian diet.
I have taken time to check out the Hebrew behind your 'multiply' argument, as the argument has a lot of weight - Zero sorrow cannot be multiplied to give much sorrow.Physical sensations that begin with pleasure are not painful. It was pain God multiplied.
Edward J. Young, the great bible scholar, http://www.opc.org/today.html?history_id=48
translates Genesis 3:16: Unto the woman he said: Causing to be great I shall cause to be great thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth sons, and unto thy husband will be thy desire, and he will rule over thee.
I looked at Geseneius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to see where he got this. The usage here means to make or do much and the same usage is seen in Isaiah 23:16:“ Take a harp, go about the city,
You forgotten harlot;
Make sweet melody, sing many songs,
That you may be remembered.”
Here it is 'sing many'
So God is saying to Eve that He will make her sorrow great. Multipling doesn't come into it.
You err in thinking a fallen creation must be all bad: but while man is undoubtedly wicked, he still bears the image of God (making it a capital offence to kill him, Gen.9:6). Likewise the rest of creation: it all displays the glory of God, declaring His eternal power and Godhead, Rom.1:20. But it is still fallen, in the bondage of corruption, Rom.8:21.The YEC theology of a cursed creation is alien to the biblical view of the world.
Hey, what's a week or two of agony to a theistic evolutionist? To the Creationist, it is a week or two too long.Incidentally, in nature, sick animals usually don't last that long.
Tell that to the victims and their families. I'm sure they would appreciate the opportunity to donate or not as they please. But that's just a Creationist speaking. Obviously evolutionary theory affects how one sees life.YEC fundamentalists usually mug people with a combination of bad science and offering baskets and are usually much more successful than the scientifically illiterate hoodie with a knife.0 -
Quote Scofflaw
Sorry - I should have been more clear. Insofar as this is a Law, it applies to complex life. Pasteur's experiments disproved "spontaneous generation", which was the creationist theory that even complex life (mice, maggots, etc) arose spontaneously from non-living matter. You are claiming that it "outlaws" the straw-man "Muck to Man Evolution" which you made up, but really, 19th century science should not really be taken as a guide to modern scientific thought, I'm afraid.
Tell you what - I modify my comment above to "do stop misinterpreting things to suit yourself".
Physician heal thyself – take your own advice and "stop misinterpreting things to suit YOURSELF".
It is a fact that the Law of Biogenesis continues to remain valid.
The SPONTANEOUS GENERATION hypothesis – i.e the belief that complex life (mice, maggots, etc) arose spontaneously from non-living matter – WASN’T a Creationist idea but in fact, it WAS an Evolutionist idea.
Indeed, SPONTANEOUS GENERATION still continues to occupy the imagination of Evolutionists who believe in ‘muck to Man Evolution’ – which obviously demands the SPONTANEOUS GENERATION of life from non-life at some point in the process.
Could I also point out that Creationists have always believed that Creation WAS COMPLETED during Creation Week. Equally the man who scientifically disproved Spontaneous Generation, Louis Pasteur, WAS a Creation Scientist.
Finally, could I point out that the current belief in the spontaneous Evolution of Mankind from Pond Scum is just as preposterous (and equally scientifically invalid) as the historical belief in the spontaneous generation of flies and maggots from muck!!!!
Quote Scofflaw
On the other hand, I am quite deeply amused by your espousal of the "deep hot oil" theory, since it involves the production of some quite large organic molecules from inorganic material. Next step, abiogenesis!
Next step, a disaster for any life that ventures close to it!!!
Is this another version of the endless Spontaneous Generation Stories that Evolutionists amuse themselves (and others) with?
Do you really believe that if life didn’t spring magically from muck, then BOILING it in super-heated oil should do the trick?
Stay away from the deep-fat fryer, Scofflaw – and certainly don’t even attempt to plunge your hand into it to help improve your phenotype – I can assure you as a Creation Scientist that it won’t!!!!
Quote Scofflaw
You're talking through your hat, as they say - do you actually know anything about the topic? Flood geology is not used in the oil industry, because it doesn't work. It doesn't work because Genesis is NOT a scientifically accurate account of the world. Sorry.
Hats are certainly being 'vocally utilised' by Evolutionists on this thread.
I’ve already drawn attention to Petroleum Geology’s 80% Dry Well 'Hit Rate' in new unexplored areas – which obviously doesn’t show perfect knowledge of the subject at hand!!!!
Science (of either the Creation or Evolutionary varieties) doesn’t possess infallible knowledge – but the Word of God in the Bible IS infallible – and this gives Creation Science the ‘edge’ over Evolutionary Science.
Whether the Oil Industry wishes to avail of this ‘edge’ is a moot point – many civilisations didn’t adopt the wheel either. Sometimes Human Beings prefer to do things the ‘hard’ way!!!
Quote Assyrian
Genesis 1 is describing God's work of creation. There were no humans around until the very end
Jn 1:1-3 confirms that Jesus Christ was present and active during Creation Week.
Jesus Christ gave Moses His wholehearted endorsement in Mt 5:17-18 and Lk 16:16-17 and this means that he also endorsed the Genesis account of Creation.
Equally, Jesus Christ endorsed the LITERAL veracity of Gen 1:27 and placed it in the context of Gen 1:1) in Mt 19:4 “Haven’t you read. He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female” and again in MK 10:6 when He said “But at the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” (NIV).
How do Theistic Evolutionists interpret Jesus Christ’s statements that Adam and Eve were created “at the BEGINNING of Creation” – if Evolution is true?
Quote Assyrian
Ezek 4:5 For I assign to you a number of days, 390 days, equal to the number of the years of their punishment. So long shall you bear the punishment of the house of Israel. 6 And when you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side, and bear the punishment of the house of Judah. Forty days I assign you, a day for each year.
In this case, it is clear that there is a DIRECT LINKAGE between particular numbers of days and the equivalent number of years. No such linkage is made between the Days of Creation Week and any other time period.
Quote Assyrian
The writer of Hebrews interpreted God's seventh day rest as a rest that is still going on and we can enter into it.
Creationists fully accept that God rested on the Seventh Day of Creation and also that He continues to rest i.e. refrain from further Direct Acts of Creation.
This actually invalidates any regular ‘tweaking’ interventions by God, which is implied by Theistic Evolution.
Quote Assyrian
As far as I know these are the only two verses in the whole bible that mention God creating the world in six days. Not only is there nothing to suggest God's days are literal days here, the statement is actually part of a metaphor.
The statements were made in the context of the Ten Commandments – which were LITERAL LAW – and therefore NOT metaphorical!!
Quote Assyrian
Actually unless you can produce evidence to show the speed of light has decreased drastically and that radioactive decay was much faster in the past, unless you can show how the earth would have dissipated the excess heat from the much faster decay of radionuclides without melting, the evidence is that the earth is billions of years old and light from distant galaxies has travelling even longer.
You cannot produce any repeatably observable evidence that the Big Bang actually occurred.
The Big Bang is just the latest idea in an endless series of fallible imaginings by Human Beings.
I prefer to take the Word of God on the matter, unless and until it is disproven by repeatable objective means.
Quote Assyrian
I think evolution is an amazingly clever design process that was God's plan that he put in place when he created the universe with its laws of physics, chemistry and maths.
There are only THREE problems with your idea:-
1. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that ‘Muck to Man Evolution’ ever occurred.
2. God makes no mention of Evolution in His account of Creation in Genesis.
3. The spontaneous generation of the sequence for a simple Protein is a mathematical impossibility.0 -
Quote Assyrian
Just because intelligence can encode information, it doesn't mean that information that is the result of random variations in DNA had been encoded directly by an intelligence. The structure of a snowflake is information too, information that tells the next water molecule to condense on it where it can and cannot go. Yes God is ultimately sovereign over the universe, but he is the one who created the laws of physics and meteorology and I believe he lets them generate the information we find in each snowflake.
Information Theory describes two types of information – syntactic and semantic.
Syntactic information is raw data with no meaning. A good example is a snowflake, or indeed any crystalline structure. A snowflake is a complex arrangement of hexagonal ice crystals. There is information there, but it is syntactic – or meaningless. A snowflake is a reasonably complex and ordered hexagonally based structure, often of great beauty, but it doesn’t contain any discernable message or meaningful information.
Equally, the information from a repeating or random pulsar is also syntactic, or meaningless – and therefore it is correctly classified by SETI as being from a natural as distinct from an intelligent source.
The physical and chemical Laws of the Universe are capable of producing Syntactic Information – so you are correct about the Snowflake.
However, the physical and chemical Laws of the Universe are NOT capable of generating the Semantic Information found in living systems.
Semantic information is meaningful. The software in a computer is an example of purposeful, meaningful information and Computer Science therefore classifies it as Semantic. The computer will not run without meaningful, precisely specified information, which has been designed and inputted, into the machine by an intelligence outside of the computer.
The information in DNA is also semantic or meaningful, precisely specified information. Whenever the ultimate source of semantic information has been identified, it has always been observed to be an intelligent agent.
Equally, the development of semantic information by undirected processes has been proven to be a mathematical impossibility. Natural Selection doesn’t provide a mechanism to GENERATE semantic information – it merely SELECTS alternatives amongst pre-existing semantic information. Mutations are equally not observed to generate semantic information – they merely degrade it. The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is to conclude that DNA had an external intelligent source. Science cannot identify this source – but it can validly conclude that such intelligence existed at some point in the past when life originated.
Quote Assyrian
Mutations are actually quite common. Most are harmless. The more harmful ones are quickly dropped from the gene pool as you point out. But it is simply an article of YEC faith rather than science to say that there are no beneficial mutations.
The overwhelming majority (99.9%) of mutations are harmful or useless. An exceedingly small number of mutations are ‘useful’. This is hardly a promising mechanism to shepherd life on an upwards and onwards curve of increasing perfection and complexity – as proposed by Evolution.
However, the final ‘nail in the coffin’ of the Mutation/Evolution relationship is the fact that ALL i.e 100% of all observed mutations are genetically DESTRUCTIVE and result in REDUCED genetic information.
Quote Assyrian
Of course the human genome is a lot more stable than MS Windows, but as you say Windows is only likely to crash if your change it at random.
Life is in a completely different league to any Human inventions (including MS Windows). However, life IS susceptible to mutagenic radioactive or chemical agents – and the results can be catastrophic.
Quote Assyrian
Every now an again, though quite rarely, you would get a useful change, another colour, another size for the windows. What natural selection does is get rid of that bad changes that crash the system and keeps the useful ones. You get another option to choose from, an increase in diversity.
All random changes are quadrillions of times more likely to ‘crash’ living system than they are to result in ANY improvement. Could I also remind you that when a living system “crashes” – death is often the result for the organism affected – and so each ‘crash’ may remove the ‘bad genes’ involved but it will also eliminate any ‘good genes’ which this organism may also have possessed.
The phenomenon of IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY means that an organ with an ultimate advantage, say a functioning eye, is a significant DISADVANTAGE in any intermediate non-functioning stage. Intermediate forms, will generally command resources, create weaknesses or be sexually repellent and as they are without any compensating advantage they will be SELECTED AGAINST by Natural Selection. Irreducible complexity also means that it is logically impossible to produce a complex useful organ through random means - try improving your sight by "whacking" your eye and see what I mean.
Intermediate stages (if such ever existed) would always confer net disadvantage – because an eye, for example, is only useful when it is a functioning eye - otherwise it is a liability. The belief that an “intermediate eye” would have partial sight or indeed partial light sensing ability is not founded on reality. Complex structures don’t work AT ALL unless all components are present and capable of functionality – and the GRADUAL production of a number of functional components INSTANTANEOUSLY is an oxymoron. This is where Punctuated Evolution tries to come in - but also fails the tests for a valid Scientific Theory. If one component is missing or any component is incapable of functionality that individual will be totally blind – and NOT partially sighted.
Molecular Biology also confirms that the gradual Evolution of useful biological structures is an impossibility. For example, the discovery of Critical Amino Acid Sequences means that a biologically active Peptide becomes totally useless when ANY changes are made to it’s sequence – thereby effectively making it a ‘prisoner’ of it’s own sequence. Even if it could blindly 'search around' in it’s immediate Amino Acid ‘combinatorial space’ it is unlikely to EVER ‘discover’ another useful Peptide chain by undirected processes such is the vastness of the 'combinatorial space' and the observed rarity and specificity of the sequences for useful Peptides.
There is no simple stepped advantage between one useful Peptide and another one – so undirected processes cannot follow some ‘yellow brick road’ of increasing utility to reach the next useful Peptide. The possible number of intermediates are literally ‘astronomical’ and because the intermediates are ALL equally USELESS, they can offer no signal of progress or 'advantage' towards the next useful Polypetide for Natural Selection to ‘follow’ or select.
It is analogous to a useful Peptide bobbing about in an ocean of useless Polypeptides, trying to blindly locate another useful Peptide on the far side of the ocean. It is literally like trying to find a 'needle in a haystack’ the size of the Earth while blindfolded.
It is also like trying to blindly 'crack' open a Safe – you have to try every possible combination. You could be within one digit of the right combination and would never 'know' it or you might have none of the digits. Either way, the result is phenotypically identical (i.e. biologically useless) – and so Natural Selection CANNOT help – when faced with quadrillions of equally useless intermediaries with NONE of them conferring any advantage.
Quote Assyrian
So what did plant breeders do in the 1950s when they hit the selection wall? They started blasting their seeds with radiation. Very successfully too. That shouldn't work if creation science was right.
There are scientifically sound reasons why the words mutation and radioactivity cause chills to run down our spines.
Some Plant Breeders did use radioactivity allright in the 50’s – but the entire project was an unmitigated disaster.
Quote Assyrian
How much diversity was there in the two wolves that trotted off the ark? Two animals do not give you a very big gene pool, yet according to YEC all the diversity we see among dogs and wolves today came from just those two. There certainly must have been an increase in genetic information sometime in the past.
Even today, crossing TWO mongrels will provide more genetic diversity than a MILLION Poodles!!
The original Created Dog Kind did have ENORMOUS genetic diversity – and it DID produce all of the various dog breeds as well as all of the feral members of the Dog Family observed today.
Quote Assyrian
Incidentally dogs will never evolve into anything other than a dog. Of course the first vertebrates never evolved into anything but vertebrates. The first mammals never evolved into anything but mammals, and apes never evolved into anything other than apes.
The 'penny is beginning to drop' Assyrian – you are not quite a Creation Scientist just yet - but you are getting there!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
> [wolfsbane] But it is not the moral teachings of the institution that
> cause the wickedness - it is the evil hearts of those who falsely profess
> the doctrines.
Ah, but I thought you said that that "evolutionism" caused "evil"?
So, you seem to say that when religious people do bad stuff, it's the people that are at fault, and not the "moral teachings". But when these "hoodie evolutionists" of yours do bad stuff, it's the "moral teachings" of evolutionism that are wrong and nothing to do with the people.
Which one is it to be? Tell the truth!0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Medieval Europe as a God-fearing society? I think not. The wickedness and corruption of the dominant church of that time is notorious. It was not confined to popes like Borgia, but characterized the leadership. Such examples to the flock no doubt led many to despise religion in the manner of many young people today. Others who still feared the system had their morality loosened by the practice of buying indulgences for the sins they practiced. Like today, a minority of godly leaders and their flocks did live out the Biblical mandate. The majority were practical atheists, living as if God did not exist or was as amoral as themselves.
Oops. I'd forgotten your position on Rome!wolfsbane wrote:Selfishness is consistent with atheism, not with Christianity. Evolutionary theory falsifies Christianity and establishes the unaccountable individual.
Selfishness is also consistent with the theory of gravity, of course. Evolution is a scientific theory, and contains no moral teachings. My point is that those who would be bad Christians make immoral evolutionists, rather than it being a result of accepting scientific enquiry as valid.
However, to some extent I accept your point - the mainstream view of evolution certainly contains the idea that morality is redundant. Hmmm. Old Earth Creationists, I think, do not teach that accepting evolution means abandoning Christian morality. Nor, curiously, do most atheists, who are, by and large, a moral lot. Even Dawkins doesn't suggest it, as far as I know. Who does say that accepting evolution entails abandoning morality? Certainly religious fundamentalists say it, because they cannot abandon the notion that religion is the fount and origin of all morality, of which the idea that accepting secularism means abandoning morality is merely the unfortunate consequence.wolfsbane wrote:I think I can. Where does the sense of community come from? From one's world-view. It is what I believe about who I am and why I am here that determines my response to my neighbours. Once I believe there is no real right or wrong, only what is right for me, then community spirit is whatever I want to make it. If I find that robbery will probably profit me in the long-run ( little chance of being caught; little chance of earning so much in any job I'm likely to get) then it becomes a moral option for me. I've ministered to criminals in prison who considered themselves just as moral as the rest of us. They had a right to house-break and steal other's property - it was their job.
I agree with your point, but disagree with your implication (which one might sum up as "atheists make bad neighbours"). Humans are naturally social, and like all social animals have a "social morality". Religion, to me, is primarily designed to reinforce the social morality, particularly in the absence of effective policing. Certainly it also acts as a focus in scattered communities, but the main bonds are social first, with or without religion. Indeed, in modern cities (and the majority of humanity is now urban), religion can become a divider, not a uniter. I would put most of the modern loss of community down to, in essence, bad urban planning - cities are designed as if cars lived in them, not people.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:It is a fact that the Law of Biogenesis continues to remain valid.
Valid for what it applies to, sure. If only someone other than you wanted to apply it to the origin of life, you'd be on firmer ground. The funny thing is, you don't believe it yourself!J C wrote:Could I also point out that Creationists have always believed that Creation WAS COMPLETED during Creation Week. Equally the man who scientifically disproved Spontaneous Generation, Louis Pasteur, WAS a Creation Scientist.
So were they all before they knew better. Keep voting the graveyards, JC, it's very impressive.J C wrote:Finally, could I point out that the current belief in the spontaneous Evolution of Mankind from Pond Scum is just as preposterous (and equally scientifically invalid) as the historical belief in the spontaneous generation of flies and maggots from muck!!!!
It's clear that it defeats your understanding, yes.J C wrote:Quote Scofflaw
On the other hand, I am quite deeply amused by your espousal of the "deep hot oil" theory, since it involves the production of some quite large organic molecules from inorganic material. Next step, abiogenesis!
Next step, a disaster for any life that ventures close to it!!!
Is this another version of the endless Spontaneous Generation Stories that Evolutionists amuse themselves (and others) with?
Do you really believe that if life didn’t spring magically from muck, then BOILING it in super-heated oil should do the trick?
Once again, you magnificently fail to grasp the point. Or indeed anything on the same planet. Sigh.J C wrote:Quote Scofflaw
You're talking through your hat, as they say - do you actually know anything about the topic? Flood geology is not used in the oil industry, because it doesn't work. It doesn't work because Genesis is NOT a scientifically accurate account of the world. Sorry.
Hats are certainly being vocally utilised by Evolutionists on this thread.
I’ve already drawn attention to Petroleum Geology’s 80% Dry Well 'Hit Rate' in new unexplored areas – which certainly doesn’t show perfect knowledge of the subject at hand!!!!
Science (of either the Creation or Evolutionary varieties) doesn’t possess infallible knowledge – but as the Word of God in the Bible IS infallible – and this gives Creation Science the ‘edge’ over Evolutionary Science.
Whether the Oil Industry wishes to avail of this ‘edge’ is a moot point – many civilisations didn’t adopt the wheel either. Sometimes Human Beings prefer to do things the ‘hard’ way!!!
When there's billions of dollars at stake? Get away! The 80% dry well rate is exactly my point - if they used Creation Science (and it worked), they'd do a lot better, wouldn't they? Funny, then, that they don't, but you and I both know why - because "Creation Science" miserably fails to do anything useful.
The oil industry is only one example. The pharmaceutical industry doesn't use Creation Science, nor does the medical profession, or the mining industry, or the bloodstock industry, or indeed any industry except for the "Creation Science" industry itself. Every single industry that uses science uses evolutionist science - not one uses your preferred brand of hocus-pocus!J C wrote:Quote Assyrian
I think evolution is an amazingly clever design process that was God's plan that he put in place when he created the universe with its laws of physics, chemistry and maths.
There are only THREE problems with your idea:-
1. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that ‘Muck to Man Evolution’ ever occurred.
2. God makes no mention of Evolution in His account of Creation in Genesis.
3. The spontaneous generation of the sequence for a simple Protein is a mathematical impossibility.
Of these three statements, only one is true, and that only for a very limited value of true.
Scofflaw0 -
By the way, to ask a general question of our Creationists - given that an adult human being would appear to contain a lot more information than a single-celled fertilised egg, how do you think this increase in information comes about?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:Quote Assyrian
Mutations are actually quite common. Most are harmless. The more harmful ones are quickly dropped from the gene pool as you point out. But it is simply an article of YEC faith rather than science to say that there are no beneficial mutations.
The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful, harmless or useless. An exceedingly small number of mutations are ‘useful’. This is hardly a promising mechanism to shepherd life on an upwards and onwards curve of increasing perfection and complexity – as proposed by Evolution.
However, the final ‘nail in the coffin’ of the Mutation/Evolution relationship is the fact that ALL i.e 100% of all observed mutations are genetically DESTRUCTIVE and result in REDUCED genetic information.
JC, this is demonstrably untrue. Radiation and chemical forcing to produce useful mutations are standard techniques in the plant breeding industry - I suggest you read around the subject - try Googling "radiation in the plant breeding industry".J C wrote:The phenomenon of IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY means that an organ with an ultimate advantage, say a functioning eye, is a significant DISADVANTAGE in any intermediate non-functioning stage.
Codswallop. There are plenty of living organisms with eyes that would be "partially functional" from our point of view (lacking focus, or colour, or being only able to sense the direction of light). There are also animals with vestigial eyes.J C wrote:Molecular Biology also confirms that the gradual Evolution of useful biological structures is an impossibility. For example, the discovery of Critical Amino Acid Sequences means that a biologically active Peptide becomes totally useless when ANY changes are made to it’s sequence – thereby effectively making it a ‘prisoner’ of it’s own sequence.
In case Assyrian missed it, we've been over this one. There's no such thing as JC's "Critical Amino Acid Sequences". I don't know whether he made it up personally, or whether it was made up for him, but either way it's a little bit of fiction.J C wrote:Quote Assyrian
So what did plant breeders do in the 1950s when they hit the selection wall? They started blasting their seeds with radiation. Very successfully too. That shouldn't work if creation science was right.
There are scientifically sound reasons why the words mutation and radioactivity cause chills to run down our spines.
Some Plant Breeders did use radioactivity allright in the 50’s – but the entire project was an unmitigated disaster.
Yes, the dosage was too high. It's now a standard technique for producing beneficial mutations (see above). JC is attempting to substitute dramatic punctuation for facts (and common sense, I'm beginning to think).J C wrote:Quote Assyrian
How much diversity was there in the two wolves that trotted off the ark? Two animals do not give you a very big gene pool, yet according to YEC all the diversity we see among dogs and wolves today came from just those two. There certainly must have been an increase in genetic information sometime in the past.
Even today, crossing TWO mongrels will provide more genetic diversity than a MILLION Poodles!!
The original Created Dog Kind did have ENORMOUS genetic diversity – and it DID produce all of the various dog breeds as well as all of the feral members of the Dog Family observed today.
You've neatly contradicted everything you've said about information at the start of your post, but what the heck! Since you're talking rubbish, it might as well be Grade A BS.
According to Biblical Literalism, all modern populations have to have gone through a terrifically tight population bottleneck (two adults, or seven, depending on which bit of Genesis you prefer) at the same time. We would need to assume that all adults pre-Flood contained all the genetic information of their whole species (so those were "super-wolves"), in order to contain within themselves every possible trait and variation we see today - otherwise, oh dear, we have to somehow have the genetic information increasing after the Flood!
So, super-animals in the Ark, anyone, or this that a bit much to swallow?
Scofflaw0 -
74 pages later, and I reckon robindch et al have been brought no closer to converting to Christianity by "the power" of your arguments for creationism.
Do you still believe you are removing "stumbling blocks"? Do you not realise that instead you are planting them on the road?0 -
Quote Wicknight
This is why it is pointless to argue science with a deeply religious person, be they Catholic, Muslim or a member of the CoS. As soon as they run into something they don't want to accept they can simply offer up the classic "God did it" answer.
How do we explain the dinosars - "God put them there to test our faith"
How do we explain the oil coal and gas - "God put it there to reward our faith"
How do we explain evolution - "God must have started it to create us"
NONE of the above positions are actually held by Creation Science – and indeed they are an incorrect caricature of the position of most Christians on these matters as well.
Creation Science uses God’s command to be stewards of all of Creation as its mandate to scientifically study Creation.
Creation Science deals with repeatably observable FACTS and uses the Scientific Method to evaluate them – unlike Evolutionists who operate in the 'Faith Zone' so to speak – as the following quotes from leading scientists prove :-
Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London. Quoted in Darwin’s Enigma by Luther D Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA 1984 pp 89.
“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”
Prof. Richard E. Dickerson, California Institute of Technology; ‘Chemical evolution and the origin of lfe’. Scientific American, vol. 239 (3), September 1978, pp. 77 and 78.
“The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts…..
We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imaginations so far have not been very helpful.”
Dr. Loren Eiseley Ph.D. (anthropology), ‘The secret of life’ in The Immense Journey, Random House, New York, 1957.
“With the failure of these many efforts (to synthesise life) science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate (evolutionary) theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, (evolutionary) science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it’s own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proven to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”
Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University. ‘Evolution’s erratic pace’ Natural History, vol LXXXVI (5) May 1977 pp 14.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record.”
Prof George Gaylord Simpson Ph D. Late Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. ‘The Major Features of Evolution’ Columbia University Press, New York, 1953 pp 360
“It remains true, as every palaeontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families and nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”
Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin’s The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London 1971 pp xi.
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproven theory – is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in Special Creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.”
(PLEASE NOTE:- This quote was from 1971 – I can NOW confirm that the latest breakthroughs in Molecular Biology and Intelligent Design Research HAS scientifically settled the issue – in favour of Special Direct Creation).0 -
J C wrote:NONE of the above positions are actually held by Creation Science – and indeed they are an incorrect caricature of the position of most Christians on these matters as well.
No idea what you mean by "Creation Science" ... all those assumptions are held by Creationists who take the Bible literally.J C wrote:Creation Science deals with repeatably observable FACTS and uses the Scientific Method to evaluate them – unlike Evolutionists who operate in the 'Faith Zone' so to speak – as the following quotes from leading scientists prove
There has never been any evidence at all ever for the idea of an intelligent creator. And all you have ever posted JC is wild assumptions based on miss-understanding of scientific processes like biology and evolution. When you are corrected on this you ignore the correction. Like I said it is pointless arguing with you because you are coming from a position that can never change. God must have created life on earth, that cannot ever be denied. You are coming from a position of religious dogma not science. Any time anything is pointed out to you that seems to contractict this view you simply ignore it.
I seem to remember having a 10 page argument about your idea that a organic molecules could not randomly develop in nature, that the odds of it happening where so huge to be impossible. I also remember repeatably explaining to you that it could, explaining that your logic was completely flawed and showed a lack of understanding of evolution, and pointing out to you experiments that actually showed organic molecules developing from inorganic molecules (which you claimed was impossible). I see you ignored all that since you are still spouting the same nonsense on this thread.
If you want to believe in Intelligent Creation of early life thats fine, I don't care. But there is no evidence in any scientific field to actually support that position.
The simple answer is we don't know exactly how life first developed on Earth. If your religious faith demands that you believe God must have had some role in it thats grand. Put please stop spouting scientific nonsense to try and prove that that must have been the case.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, he is pointing out that this man is not an expert in evolution as you claimed.MOGSA wrote:You attack the man's integrity without knowing the man or the basis for his comparisons.
Only if you don't understand what is happening.MOGSA wrote:All this is well documented and this particular incident showed him, as an evolutionist, that what was thought to take millions of years, took a few minutes
Any geologist worth his salt can easily tell the difference between a local short term event like a volcano and a wide spread long term event like soil errosion.
The idea that a series of short term events like volcanos or a massive flood could produce the millions upon millions of individual examples of long term erossion or sediment build up all around the world is, frankly, ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of the hundreds of different processes involved.
But TBH it is the same old crap we have come to expect from Creationisth "science" .. attacking on specific example and then trying to expand that out to encompass and entire field of science. Mount St. Helens can produce sediment that to the untrained eye kinda looks like sediment layers. So what? Does that disprove the million other examples of long term errosion or sediment around the world? No it doesn't, so what is the point of even bringing it up. Its ridculous pseudo-science for people who don't understand the actual science itself
As I said, nonsense0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement