The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

CDfm

Morbert wrote: »

I can't decipher this. What does it have to do with so called 'neo-darwinists' (which I still doubt exist)?

I have looked for a definition of Neo-Darwinism as I was being facetious and you are not being.My point being that some arguments raised of the Dawkins genre are arguments from authority ( just learned that phrase)

Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do. —

Its from Lynn Murgulis Professor of Geosciences at the University of Minnesota amd it added to my understanding of this area.I usually have to read basic science to follow some arguments.

Yes but do you accept that deism is not a scientific theory?

Genisis 1.1 First God made heaven & earth I couldn't do that now could I.

And I still don't understand your 'blue jumper' references.

classic Fr Ted borrowed from elsewhere (Marco Polo here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60436615&postcount=15780 )

Father Ted Crilly: Ah, Sister Assumpta!
Sr. Assumpta: Hello Father!
Father Ted Crilly: Dougal, Dougal, do you remember Sister Assumpta?
Father Dougal McGuire: Er, no.
Father Ted Crilly: She was here last year! And then we stayed with her in the convent, back in Kildare. Do you remember it? Ah, you do! And then you were hit by the car when you went down to the shops for the paper. You must remember all that? And then you won a hundred pounds with your lottery card? Ah, you must remember it, Dougal!
I]Dougal shakes his head[/I
Sr. Assumpta: And weren't you accidentally arrested for shoplifting? I remember we had to go down to the police station to get you!... And the police station went on fire? And you had to be rescued by helicopter?
Father Ted Crilly: Do you remember? You can't remember any of that? The helicopter! When you fell out of the helicopter! Over the zoo! Do you remember the tigers?
I]Dougal shakes his head some more[/I
Father Ted Crilly: You don't remember? You were wearing your blue jumper.
Father Dougal McGuire: Ah, Sister Assumpta!

You may even own a blue jumper yourself.

J C

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Given the amount of incest, rape, murder and general abuses involved, the bible could probably have been banned here for most of the last century if it had not been a religious book.

....I have often found that there is nobody as illiberal, puritanical and judgemental as a 'pseudo-liberal' .... when it comes to ideas with which they disagree!!!!:pac::):D

J C

robindch wrote: »

Rooks smarter than previously thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8059688.stm

Demonstrate use of metatools.

...so do you now believe that birds as well as monkeys are in your 'family tree' Robin!!!!???:D:):pac:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...so do you now believe that birds as well as monkeys are in your 'family tree' Robin!!!!???:D:):pac:

Of course not. We share common ancestor with them, and indeed with all vertebrates. Why else would they share so many features with us such lens eyes with an inverted retina, jointed endoskeletal limbs, fused skull, limb digits, toenails and countless other features that are unique to vertebrates?

We have loads of questions for you J C. Stick around. Answer some of them. Or have we got you on the run?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sorry to have disappointed you, but I plead my feeble scientific skill.

Actually I would like to apologise for my snappy demeanour in that post. Rough week with some sad news right at the start. Not an excuse but there it is. I am actually quite pleased to be discussing the science of this with you and I'm particularly pleased to see you branching out in your sources. Though I would stress that New Scientist needs to be taken with a pinch of salt these days. Which is sad really.

Anyway, sorry Wolfie.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That is as silly as the macro/micro argument. Questioning the various aspects of evolution is questioning evolution

If the various aspects of the theory cannot work then the theory itself cannot work. If the various aspects of the theory do work then the theory works. That is what a theory is. a collection of models and predictions.

It is like saying you tested every bit of your Honda but did you actually test the Honda itself? Such as statement is meaningless, testing that all the bits of a car work is testing the car.

I swear to Allah :mad:

Well, my crazy Muslim friend, I thought the context would have clued you in to my meaning: evolutionists may dispute the cause of any particular part of the process; for example, whether birds evolved from some early shared ancestor of the dinosaurs or directly from advanced dinosaurs; but they may not question evolution as the cause of the present biosphere.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Actually I would like to apologise for my snappy demeanour in that post. Rough week with some sad news right at the start. Not an excuse but there it is. I am actually quite pleased to be discussing the science of this with you and I'm particularly pleased to see you branching out in your sources. Though I would stress that New Scientist needs to be taken with a pinch of salt these days. Which is sad really.

Anyway, sorry Wolfie.

No problem, my friend. Sorry about your troubles.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Ken Miller holds to a non-materialist explanation of the universe/biosphere post-Big Bang?
yes. Ken Miller is not a materialist.

Could you link me to something that tells us his view on where God intervened? That is, where materialistic causes ended and spiritual ones occurred.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Of course not. We share common ancestor with them, and indeed with all vertebrates. Why else would they share so many features with us such lens eyes with an inverted retina, jointed endoskeletal limbs, fused skull, limb digits, toenails and countless other features that are unique to vertebrates?

We have loads of questions for you J C. Stick around. Answer some of them. Or have we got you on the run?

Just the one vertebrate evolved then. Why ?

Mickeroo

CDfm wrote: »

Just the one vertebrate evolved then. Why ?

You've never seen the beast with two backs??

Baaddum tiiisssssshhhhhhh :P

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Just the one vertebrate evolved then. Why ?

It would be a rather unlikely coincidence for vertebrates to arise independently more than once, or at least unlikely that they'd arise the same way more than once. It's entirely possible that some similar trait might arise in one of the invertebrate cordate species (animals with a spinal cord but no backbones)- but it'd be a bit surprising if it were made of bone, and very surprising if it were made of segmented bones shaped like vertebrate backbones. The creationists would be pleased though.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It would be a rather unlikely coincidence for vertebrates to arise independently more than once,

Oh dear, you are starting to sound like a creationist

or at least unlikely that they'd arise the same way more than once.

Unless there was a God

It's entirely possible that some similar trait might arise in one of the invertebrate cordate species (animals with a spinal cord but no backbones)- but it'd be a bit surprising if it were made of bone, and very surprising if it were made of segmented bones shaped like vertebrate backbones.

OOps tricky question that.Very like how do you get a car from the Periodic Table of Elements.

The creationists would be pleased though.

And the deists too.

CDfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Morbert said:

Could you link me to something that tells us his view on where God intervened? That is, where materialistic causes ended and spiritual ones occurred.

Ah the simplicity of the question I wonder if the answer is I read it in a book by Dawkins.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We (Humans) share common ancestor with them (birds), and indeed with all vertebrates.

.....is that where some Evolutionists get their 'bird-brained' ideas from???:pac::):D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

..... Why else would they share so many features with us such lens eyes with an inverted retina, jointed endoskeletal limbs, fused skull, limb digits, toenails and countless other features that are unique to vertebrates?

.....could it be the same reason why all machines with internal combustion engines share so many common features such a engine cylinders, fuel injectors, electrical systems, exhaust pipes, fuel tanks, etc.???.....Common Intelligent Design of course!!!!:pac::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
It would be a rather unlikely coincidence for vertebrates to arise independently more than once,

CDfm
Oh dear, you are starting to sound like a creationist

....becoming a Creationist is an 'occupational hazard' that faces all Evolutionists who look objectively at the observable evidence that living creatures provide ... the belief that they just Spontanelously Evolved from pondslime is about as 'logical' as sticking a feather in the ground and expecting it to grow a Hen...neither belief takes account of the fact that the genetic information simply isn''t there and NEVER will be there to allow either outcome to be realised!!!:cool:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....is that where some Evolutionists get their 'bird brained' ideas from???:pac::):D

Did you write this article by any chance?

J C wrote: »

.....could it be the same reason why all machines with internal combustion engines share so many common features such a engine cylinders, fuel injectors, electrical systems, exhaust pipes, fuel tanks, etc. that are unique to ICE powered machines???.....intelligent design OF COURSE!!!:pac::):D

No, and I want you to please refute this next point rather than run off for a month again.

Your analogy fails because a car also has wheels that originated from the design of simple log rollers and water wheels, seats that derive from the standalone chair, rivets that predate metal skinned vehicles, screws that come from screw-based water wells. Those electrical systems you mention are a big problem too! If cars are descended from carts or trains, then where did the electrics come from? Modern cars feature LCD screens to display information, which is technology derived from TV screens. So even conventional cars have traits that come from multiple unrelated sources. Then take examples such as the solar powered car, which derives its main power sources from the standalone solar panel.

If you try to build a linked structure that considers all traits of these designed objects, you get a web. Throughout, we see evidence of a designer who looked at existing designs rather than "re-invent the wheel".

We don't see that with life forms. The design of pterosaur wings was ignored when the bird wing was "designed", and that design was ignored when the bat wing was "designed". With the rare exception of HGT events (which can only give us endosymbiosis and single gene transfer), eukaryotic life forms do not display the web pattern that indicates design. Traits are always locked into subsets within subsets, one form giving rise to two in a bifurcating tree pattern. Show me a eukaryotic life form in which the traits have been derived from multiple dissimilar sources, then you might have an argument. Otherwise your analogy to designed objects is worthless.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Oh dear, you are starting to sound like a creationist

Yes but you'll note that I don't use probability to calculate "impossibility", a concept that is actually meaningless in probability.

CDfm wrote: »

Unless there was a God

Well yes. In which case the design features exclusive to vertebrates is very perplexing indeed. Traits like toenails logically demand a toe, but there's nothing specific to vertebrates that demands we have an inverted retina and the resulting blind spot. Yet that feature is unique to vertebrates.

CDfm wrote: »

OOps tricky question that.Very like how do you get a car from the Periodic Table of Elements.

Not really. Cars don't reproduce and their variations do not breed true. So there's no plausible way for us to get to car from elements!

CDfm wrote: »

And the deists too.

Well it'd certainly give scientists a massive headache. But so far we see nothing to worry about.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....becoming a Creationist is an 'occupational hazard' that faces all Evolutionists who look objectively at the observable evidence that living creatures provide ... the belief that they just Spontanelously Evolved from pondslime is about as 'logical' as sticking a feather in the ground and expecting it to grow a Hen...neither belief takes account of the fact that the genetic information simply isn''t there and NEVER will be there to allow either outcome to be realised!!!:cool:

How are these two things comparable? I can't imagine a way that a feather could turn into a hen using just the known laws of nature. But I can imagine many ways in which an organic soup could give rise to self replicating sequences using just those laws. And various steps in that process have been tested in the lab and shown to work. We can generate amino acids from a molecular mixture, we can get RNA nucleotides from "goo plus UV light" and we can synthesis RNA molecules that self-replicate and undergo natural selection. What have we done with feathers?

Oh and he's gone again. Funny how J C's argument mostly consists of hit and run wise-cracks...

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Oh and he's gone again. Funny how J C's argument mostly consists of hit and run wise-cracks...

Wise-cracks are wise.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Wise-cracks are wise.

I see what you did there. :pac:

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well it'd certainly give scientists a massive headache. But so far we see nothing to worry about.

Aspirin or paracetemol AH

kiffer

CDfm wrote: »

Aspirin or paracetemol AH

Well... I can't/shouldn't take aspirin and i don't like paracetemol... I guess i'd have to go for some sort of opiate/opiod... Any suggestions?

CDfm

kiffer wrote: »

I guess i'd have to go for some sort of opiate/opiod...

I was only suggesting something for a headache and not remedies for creationist abuse.

CDfm

J C wrote: »

...so do you now believe that birds are in your family tree

I know - we have them too but we call them women.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Did you write this article by any chance?

....sounds like 'The Confessions of an Evolutionist' to me!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No, and I want you to please refute this next point rather than run off for a month again.

Your analogy fails because a car also has wheels that originated from the design of simple log rollers and water wheels, seats that derive from the standalone chair, rivets that predate metal skinned vehicles, screws that come from screw-based water wells. Those electrical systems you mention are a big problem too! If cars are descended from carts or trains, then where did the electrics come from? Modern cars feature LCD screens to display information, which is technology derived from TV screens. So even conventional cars have traits that come from multiple unrelated sources. Then take examples such as the solar powered car, which derives its main power sources from the standalone solar panel.

If you try to build a linked structure that considers all traits of these designed objects, you get a web. Throughout, we see evidence of a designer who looked at existing designs rather than "re-invent the wheel".

We don't see that with life forms. The design of pterosaur wings was ignored when the bird wing was "designed", and that design was ignored when the bat wing was "designed". With the rare exception of HGT events (which can only give us endosymbiosis and single gene transfer), eukaryotic life forms do not display the web pattern that indicates design. Traits are always locked into subsets within subsets, one form giving rise to two in a bifurcating tree pattern. Show me a eukaryotic life form in which the traits have been derived from multiple dissimilar sources, then you might have an argument. Otherwise your analogy to designed objects is worthless.

....ah but THE DESIGNER of life was an Almighty God ... and He also DID use basic designs throughout living systems ... and amazingly different ones as well!!!

Our God is an AWESOME God!!!

....and He loves YOU too ... and wants to Save YOU!!!:pac::):D

....so 'give up your auld sins' .... and your 'auld Spontaneous Evolution' stuff ... and be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord!!!

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes but you'll note that I don't use probability to calculate "impossibility", a concept that is actually meaningless in probability.

...probabilities in excess of 10^-100 are statistical IMPOSSIBILITIES ... and the non-intelligently directed production of a simple protein is just one of many aspects of living processes that are statisitical IMPOSSIBILITIES!!:pac::)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...probabilities in excess of 10^-100 are statistical IMPOSSIBILITIES ... and the non-intelligently directed production of a simple protein is just one of many things that are statisitical IMPOSSIBILITIES!!:pac::)

No, they're just improbabilities. Why don't you show me the calculations you did to get that number you keep giving us?

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Your analogy fails because a car also has wheels that originated from the design of simple log rollers and water wheels, seats that derive from the standalone chair, rivets that predate metal skinned vehicles, screws that come from screw-based water wells. Those electrical systems you mention are a big problem too! If cars are descended from carts or trains, then where did the electrics come from? Modern cars feature LCD screens to display information, which is technology derived from TV screens. So even conventional cars have traits that come from multiple unrelated sources. Then take examples such as the solar powered car, which derives its main power sources from the standalone solar panel.

If you try to build a linked structure that considers all traits of these designed objects, you get a web. Throughout, we see evidence of a designer who looked at existing designs rather than "re-invent the wheel".

We don't see that with life forms. The design of pterosaur wings was ignored when the bird wing was "designed", and that design was ignored when the bat wing was "designed". With the rare exception of HGT events (which can only give us endosymbiosis and single gene transfer), eukaryotic life forms do not display the web pattern that indicates design. Traits are always locked into subsets within subsets, one form giving rise to two in a bifurcating tree pattern. Show me a eukaryotic life form in which the traits have been derived from multiple dissimilar sources, then you might have an argument. Otherwise your analogy to designed objects is worthless.

....ah but THE DESIGNER of life was an Almighty God ... and He also DID use basic designs throughout living systems ... and amazingly different ones as well!!!

So you should be able to provide me with an example of a eukaryotic life form in which the traits have clearly been derived from multiple dissimilar sources without horizontal gene transfer. An example being a feature otherwise exclusive to arthropoda found in a member of chordata or vice versa.

Give me one specific example please.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Oh and he's gone again. Funny how J C's argument mostly consists of hit and run wise-cracks...

And he is supposed to be the "scientist" :rolleyes:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well, my crazy Muslim friend, I thought the context would have clued you in to my meaning: evolutionists may dispute the cause of any particular part of the process; for example, whether birds evolved from some early shared ancestor of the dinosaurs or directly from advanced dinosaurs; but they may not question evolution as the cause of the present biosphere.

Again that is a really silly thing to say which to be honest your ignorance of scientific manners can only excuse you so far before one is forced to assume you are simply trolling nonsense Creationism.

If "evolutionists" (I assume you mean evolutionary biologists) can dispute any and all parts of evolution theory that is exactly the same as being able to dispute the theory as a whole.

The only thing is that science would expect the person to actually back up this dispute with details. They bit that seems to be confusing you is that a Creationist cannot simply come out and say "I dispute all of this", because the rest of science would go "Ok, what are the details you dispute" and the Creationist doesn't have these details and just cries persecution because he is not "allowed" dispute evolutionary theory in general without have the specifics.

Or to put it another way, how would an evolutionary biologist dispute the whole theory if he had not first disputed a large number of the details in order to build up a reason to dispute the entire theory. It would make no sense for someone to simply say the whole thing is wrong without having the details in the details of why it is wrong.

Which should be blindingly obvious to you if you have listen to anything any of us have said about science and how it works. I seriously have to wonder about your motivation some times here Wolfsbane.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

If "evolutionists" (I assume you mean evolutionary biologists) can dispute any and all parts of evolution theory that is exactly the same as being able to dispute the theory as a whole.

As Atomic Horror deftly pointed out the Origan of The Species and the Origan of Life Are not synonomous.

The only thing is that science would expect the person to actually back up this dispute with details. They bit that seems to be confusing you is that a Creationist cannot simply come out and say "I dispute all of this", because the rest of science would go "Ok, what are the details you dispute" and the Creationist doesn't have these details and just cries persecution because he is not "allowed" dispute evolutionary theory in general without have the specifics.

A criticism of evolutionary theory is that it seems to lead one in a particular direction right or wrong the Tree of Life could be utter bollox as it is not conclusive proof. The search for elusive missing links etc.

I am not saying it is but that whether it is or not you have the here and now.Neo Darwinisim which Atomic Horror says(I hope I am not misquoting) is the Modern Synthesis of Darwin and Mendel brought inherited change into the mix.

Genetics is sophisticated and the whole DNA thing leaves me confused. Like evolutionary bilogists tell us this and that yet they cant collect enough dna or frozen mammoth sperm to impregnate an elephant. And Im on the side of the evolutionists but it just is not proven.

Parts are accepted and the logic is there but science is no furher in proving who the ancestors of Chickenasauros kfc are.

Now I am no expert but there is a lot of join the dots and hype.

Which should be blindingly obvious to you if you have listen to anything any of us have said about science and how it works.

For that matter people do bring their prejudices from the Pro and Anti God Camps ( lots of creationists believe there is nothing as camp as an anti-God evolutionist and Im being allegorical) but that does nothing for the arguments for either side.

So I agree with you here Wicknight but the whole reject God or you cant accept science does no credit to some posters (present company excepted).