The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

sukikettle

It's real simple evolution does not exist...it never has...as beings that cannot create and please don't confuse pushing around a few atoms with creating...what would even drive the evolution of our beings...towards what are we evolving and fellas it's not towards sophistication as nothing we are experiencing or will experience is new...it's all been seen before and how come the writer of Genesis knew the world was round before the official fella did. Really this is just an argument to come up with a definitive no-God theory so you can all feel better about your lives blighted by recession, poor health, screwy relationships and a general lack of cohesiveness with your fellow man...get Jesus in your life and flourish people...Amen!... Praise the Lord...all Glory be unto Him who most definitely exists and loves you. Shalom

DublinWriter

sukikettle wrote: »

screwy relationships and a general lack of cohesiveness with your fellow man...get Jesus in your life and flourish people...Amen!... Praise the Lord...all Glory be unto Him who most definitely exists and loves you. Shalom

Screwy relationships? Go read the Bible, in particular Lot's incestuous relationship with his daughters after their escape from Sodom.

I mean, honestly, have any of you actually read the OT?

The Mad Hatter

sukikettle wrote: »

It's real simple evolution does not exist...it never has...as beings that cannot create and please don't confuse pushing around a few atoms with creating...what would even drive the evolution of our beings...towards what are we evolving and fellas it's not towards sophistication as nothing we are experiencing or will experience is new...it's all been seen before and how come the writer of Genesis knew the world was round before the official fella did. Really this is just an argument to come up with a definitive no-God theory so you can all feel better about your lives blighted by recession, poor health, screwy relationships and a general lack of cohesiveness with your fellow man...get Jesus in your life and flourish people...Amen!... Praise the Lord...all Glory be unto Him who most definitely exists and loves you. Shalom

Shalom? Funny sign-off for a professed Christian.

As to what drives evolution - it's called natural selection. Look it up.

I know, I know, I should just be ignoring you.

AtomicHorror

sukikettle wrote: »

It's real simple evolution does not exist...it never has...as beings that cannot create and please don't confuse pushing around a few atoms with creating...what would even drive the evolution of our beings...

We vary, that variation is selected for or against by conditions. It's that simple. Once you have a self-replicating system that varies, you have evolution.

sukikettle wrote: »

towards what are we evolving and fellas it's not towards sophistication as nothing we are experiencing or will experience is new...it's all been seen before and how come the writer of Genesis knew the world was round before the official fella did.

Quote me the passage where that is made clear in Genesis. While you're at it, you might consider reading the work of Pythagoras, who proposed a spherical Earth some time around 550 BC. The notion that the world was held to be flat by literate people for any significant time in history is basically crap.

sukikettle wrote: »

Really this is just an argument to come up with a definitive no-God theory so you can all feel better about your lives blighted by recession, poor health, screwy relationships and a general lack of cohesiveness with your fellow man...

Ah yes, the great recession of 1859. You won't find it in history books, but why should that matter when you can just make stuff up?

What evolution is, my dear sukikettle, is an argument developed to explain many things which would make no sense in a world in which life was created as-is by an intelligent and benevolent designer. Adaptation, exaptation, mutation, selection and the tree of life. These make make a mockery of a universe in which life is designed at its optimum and then left static.

sukikettle wrote: »

get Jesus in your life and flourish people...Amen!... Praise the Lord...all Glory be unto Him who most definitely exists and loves you. Shalom

Who needs Jesus when I can multiquote you for the sheer fun of it?

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This is not true. Creationism denies that mutation can produce functional genes frequently enough to allow variation. It denies that variations under selection can accumulate to result in larger changes. Both of these concepts are central to the practical applications of evolution. Site-directed mutagenesis, phage-display selection, bioinformatics... none of these make sense without those concepts in place.

How does assuming that genetic similarity equals a common designer help us in genetics? What can we predict with that assumption? We'd have to know the motives and aesthetic sense of the designer to make any predictions at all. And yet some how, by making no such assumptions, we can predict the genetics of undiscovered species. We can rule out impossible combinations. Creationism adds nothing to this, indeed the elements of the theory unique to evolution are vital to that process. And it works.

I really hope Wolfsbane doesn't just ignore these points and actually tries to confront them, because this is really the central point to science right here, a scientific theory must work, neo-Darwinian evolution works

It produces things. It produces predictions. It produces understand of processes which produce further things like medical knowledge to understand genetic disease. In other fields of science, such as geology, models of the Earth being older than Creationists say, work as well. They produce results.

Creationism doesn't, it is has never predicted or produced anything.

CDfm

When Wolfsbane away,the evolutionists will play.:rolleyes:

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

When Wolfsbane away,the evolutionists will play.:rolleyes:

We only get to play when he's here . J C and sukicrazy aren't around enough to keep us busy. So the thread will probably die a bit till he's back.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We only get to play when he's here . J C and sukicrazy aren't around enough to keep us busy. So the thread will probably die a bit till he's back.

You could probably deputise for him as you know his arguments so well :pac:

I dont suppose he has gone fossil hunting -do you?

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

You could probably deputise for him as you know his arguments so well :pac:

I fear I'd end up arguing with myself.

CDfm wrote: »

I dont suppose he has gone fossil hunting -do you?

I wish. Even reading some scientific literature would be good. Anything beats reading confused little essays by Ken Ham.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I fear I'd end up arguing with myself.



I wish. Even reading some scientific literature would be good. Anything beats reading confused little essays by Ken Ham.

Who is ken ham.

it may be a good time to discuss why the origan of life and the origan of the species are distinct issues.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Who is ken ham.

it may be a good time to discuss why the origan of life and the origan of the species are distinct issues.

Why would anyone think they aren't distinct issues?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would anyone think they aren't distinct issues?

Well - some do.

On the "creationist" side the accusation is that to believe in evolution is to reject the bible if I read it allegorically and on the "evolutionist" (used her in the narrow sence) to believe the bible and in God I can be dubbed anti-science and evolution.

You gotta admit they get mixed up.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Well - some do.

On the "creationist" side the accusation is that to believe in evolution is to reject the bible if I read it allegorically and on the "evolutionist" (used her in the narrow sence) to believe the bible and in God I can be dubbed anti-science and evolution.

You gotta admit they get mixed up.

They also conflate planet formation, stellar evolution and the big bang into "evolution". Essentially for them evolution is anything and everything in science that contradicts Genesis. Which is a lot. Abiogenesis is more relevant to evolution, and it will turn out to share many mechanisms, but it's still a different area of study and addresses a different question.

Also, Ken Ham is Ken Ham.

darjeeling

CDfm wrote: »

Who is ken ham.

it may be a good time to discuss why the origan of life and the origan of the species are distinct issues.

It's remarkably simple. Evolution tells us how self-replicating organisms change over generations. It doesn't say that organisms evolve only if they first arose in a particular way. There's no need, then, to clutter up the theory of evolution with unnecessary factors.

If you want the short version: Ockham's razor.

Why do people confuse abiogenesis and evolution? Perhaps because they see faith as offering an all-encompassing explanation (of sorts) for the world, and consequently expect the same from science. Evolution, seen by many past and present as the biggest scientific challenge to scripture, then becomes burdened with this expectation.

CDfm

darjeeling wrote: »

If you want the short version: Ockham's razor.

William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar which makes him a Catholic priest so I was right all along.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

neo-Darwinian

Woohoo -I just love the Neo-Darwinist attack.

Wicknight you are a Neo Darwinist.

darjeeling

CDfm wrote: »

William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar which makes him a Catholic priest so I was right all along.

Yawn. Anyway, right about what? Were you saying something?

CDfm

darjeeling wrote: »

Yawn. Anyway, right about what? Were you saying something?

ok - but would you agree the Bible is allegorical?

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

ok - but would you agree the Bible is allegorical?

Think most of us would go for the non-literal, non-allegorical, non-metaphorical interpretation of the bible :pac:.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Think most of us would go for the non-literal, non-allegorical, non-metaphorical interpretation of the bible :pac:.

Thats not very scientific now is it.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Unlike religion and theology prejudices are irrelevant in science. The only thing that matters is what you can demonstrate. That is why Creationists hate science so much, they can't demonstrate their theology. So they attack science itself.

.....never had any problem with science.....and the only people unable to demonstrate ANYTHING about their THEORY ....are the Spontaneous Evolutionists!!!!:):D

....and that is why we have so many deeply religious Atheists ... who have such a very strong (but unfounded) faith in 'Blind Chance' .... and her accident-prone, inbred first cousin 'Gene Mutation' !!!!:)

J C

CDfm wrote: »

Is calling someone a neo-darwinist really bad. Is it the scientist equivalent of Creationist???

...it's almost as bad as calling them a Darwinist!!!:pac::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So is it really that huge a leap to deny contradictory scientific evidence? Science can be complicated sometimes, and it's very easy to differ to authority when a thing is difficult to understand. Ironically, it is this very style of thinking that science was created to circumvent.

...and it is a style of thinking that science has been unable to prevent amongst Spontaneous Evolutionists ... who rely heavily on the 'authority' of their fellow Atheistic 'heavyweights' .... to deny the clear evidence for Intelligent Design before their very eyes ... indeed even the Intelligent Design of their very eyes!!!!! :pac::):D

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The default position is 'we don't know'.

...we certainly DO know that pondslime will NEVER turn into anything other than more pondslime!!!!:pac::):D

J C

darjeeling wrote: »

Simply not true. Evolution, and what it has revealed about common ancestry, underpins medical and genetic research.

We study gene function in mice, nematodes, frogs, fruit flies and even yeasts to find out what the genes do in humans. This works because common ancestry means we have inherited many of the same genes as these other organisms, and that these genes are carrying out similar functions.

We test new therapies on other mammal species because their relatively recent common ancestry with us means we share comparable biochemistry and physiology, and will respond similarly to treatment.

...all evidence of common design ... and NOT common ancestry!!!!

...IF they had common ancestry ... and their genetics underwent the dramatic (and supposedly undirected) changes required to turn a slimeball into a Human, studying the genes of frogs would have little or NO application in Human Medicine...as their genotypes would be as dramatically different from each other as is their phenotypes have supposedly become over billions of years!!!!:D

On the other hand, IF an Infirite Intelligence designed all life, we could expect to find commonalities between different Created Kinds ... just like we find commonalities across the different creations of Human Intelligence!!!!:pac::):D

J C

DublinWriter wrote: »

Screwy relationships? Go read the Bible, in particular Lot's incestuous relationship with his daughters after their escape from Sodom.

I mean, honestly, have any of you actually read the OT?

...YES the Holy Bible presents the TRUTH of sinful Mankind....'warts and all'....and THAT is another reason WHY it is the infallible unadulterated Word of God!!!!!:pac::):D

The Mad Hatter

J C: Glad you're here. You have a long list of unanswered questions. Could you get to addressing them again, please? Or are you going to disappear for another two weeks?

Mickeroo

You know, at least wolfsbane has the grace to engage in actual debate, and at least try to answer questions.

CDfm

DublinWriter wrote: »

Screwy relationships? Go read the Bible, in particular Lot's incestuous relationship with his daughters after their escape from Sodom.

I mean, honestly, have any of you actually read the OT?

The apostles took a lot of teaching as having allegorical meanings so how we interpret the message changes with the era.

CDfm

Mickeroo wrote: »

You know, at least wolfsbane has the grace to engage in actual debate, and at least try to answer questions.

maybe he was too nice to you and needs a break