The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

Where did JC go?

His posting frequency dropped drastically after AtomicHorror posted his list of questions, and his rebuttals to J C's own points. He still occasionally pops in to answer some things, but seems to make a point of not answering AH's post, despite numerous reposts. Every time it gets mentioned, he disappears again for a while.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

I know of no Creation scientists.

What about ME????!!!!:pac::):D;)

....waits for the usual deluge of abuse and insults to my conventional scientific qualifications!!!!!:eek:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And they made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

Prophesied by Isaiah about 700 years before Jesus of Nazareth was born. It was recognised by the Rabbis as speaking of the Messiah.

Yes but there is nothing specific in that at all. It could have applied to countless Messiah figures of the time. In fact it could be applied to countless figures of any time.

Read it back but imagine this time you are thinking about Martin Luther King.

Derren Brown did a very interesting experiment where he gave 10 people personal assessments of them despite never meeting them before the show. The people where shocked that he knew them all so well. Then at the end they were asked to pass the sheet to the person beside them. They realised that all the sheets were exactly the same.

These types of "prophecies" are easy to construct and rely on people already having a narrative to apply to them.

It is like the fortune teller saying something very unspecific, "You met a stranger today and acted in kindess" and your brain, having already had a narrative of your day, fills in the pieces, "Yes! I met a homeless man on the bus and I gave him a euro! THat is amazing, how did you know!"

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Weren't the first Christians Jews by birth? Wasn't Jesus Himself a Jew?
Weren't the first Mormons Christians?

Soul Winner wrote: »

It was they who first interpreted the Old Testament prophecies as being fulfilled in Christ, starting with Jesus Himself, He was always appealing to the Old Testament prophecies to support His claims. Good piece here

Well that is the second point. All these people, including Jesus, were apparently aware of the prophecies they were supposed to be fulfilling.

How then is it shocking that they appear to match within the framework of the prophecies?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Are you willing to accept as balanced and fair what a Jew will say about the New Testament? If so, then why not also accept as balanced and fair what a Christian will say about the Old Testament.

The same reason that I imagine you would not be willing to accept as balanced and fair what a Mormon has to say about the New Testament.

If you did I would imagine you would be a Mormon.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by stevejazzx
In fairness Brian I cannot imagine scenario where a school would be teaching creationism and then afterwards science or vice versa. It'd be pretty confusing no?

BrianCalgary
I found English lit class to be very confusing.

Socialism being taught in Social class then capitalism in business class.

I had one teacher who thought communism was quite a good idea and another who extolled the virues of the capitalist.

One history teacher who thought the US republic style of government was the bees knees, wheras another thought the House of Lords and our subsequent Canadian Senate was the best system of government.

We get mixed messages in our schools regardless, I think its great when that happens, makes one think.

...you have just highlighted the difference between education and brainwashing....
...Brian's experience in school was a broad general education...while Steve is advocating brainwashing!!!!

....as a brainwashing concept, Evolution is quite a failure ... must be something to do with all of the unfounded 'baloney' that is used to support it!!!

....methinks it is a Weasel...or a Dodo....or perhaps both a Weasel and a Dodo!!!!!!:pac::):D:eek::cool:

DTrotter

Galvasean wrote: »

Pardon me, you materialistic evolutionists all look the same to me.

That's common ancestry for you.

DTrotter

J C wrote: »

[/b]...you have just highlighted the difference between education and brainwashing....
...Brian's experience in school was a broad general education...while Steve is advocating brainwashing!!!!

....as a brainwashing concept, Evolution is quite a failure ... must be something to do with all of the unfounded 'baloney' that is used to support it!!!

....methinks it is a Weasel...or a Dodo....or perhaps both a Weasel and a Dodo!!!!!!:pac::):D:eek::cool:

Teaching creationism as a science isn't broad, just wrong.

J C

5uspect wrote: »

How many times does this need to be explained to you?
I've lost count of how many times people have tried to explain to you, and I mean you in particular, how science and evolution works. I took the time a year or two ago to try to explain to you, in that thread, in a simple non-complex way how evolution works. Halfway through which you dismissed it as being too silly without any reason whatsoever.

...so just HOW does inanimate matter 'lift itself up by its own bootstraps' from pondslime to become men....with nothing added but time???

...sits back to hear the predictable faith-based ideas with which Evolutionists confuse themselves !!!:pac::):D

DTrotter

J C wrote: »

...so just HOW does inanimate matter lift itself up by its own bootstraps from pondslime to become men....with nothing added but time???

...sits back to hear the predictable faith-based ideas with which Evolutionists confuse themselves!!!:pac::):D

Haven't read back in the thread fo ryour posts but do you believe all life there ever was and is on earth was put there/cretaed in the form it took during it's existence?

J C

PaintDoctor wrote: »

JC, no chance you'd edit your sig to make it smaller? Half the scrolling on this page is just to get past your sig!

....a bit ironic....coming from somebody with a signature as big as some apartment blocks !!!!:pac::):D

J C

DTrotter wrote: »

Teaching creationism as a science isn't broad, just wrong.

...I could say the same about teaching Faith-based Evolution as Science...but I believe in children hearing all there is to know about Spontaneous Evolution ... we all need a good laugh !!!!:pac::):D

DTrotter

J C wrote: »

...I could say the same about teaching the Evolution Faith as Science...but I believe in children hearing all there is to know about Spontaneous Evolution ... we all need a good laugh !!!!:pac::):D

Noahs Ark is funnier, maybe a bit of incest to calm them down after.

J C

DTrotter wrote: »

Haven't read back in the thread fo ryour posts but do you believe all life there ever was and is on earth was put there/cretaed in the form it took during it's existence?

...I don't believe in 'fixity of species' ... with the exception of Human Beings ... if that is what you mean.

Speciation occurs rapidly, sometimes instantaneously .. and is a key concept that is accepted by Creation Science.:pac::):D

....but it is speciation using pre-existing genetic diversity that was originally intelligently created by God ... and not a product of random mutagenesis, selection and time... as Evolutionists would have you believe!!!:pac::)

I have found that the Evolutionist's belief in the suppposed 'awesome power' of mutagenesis somehow crumbles when they are afforded the opportunity to be exposed to a mutagenic agent like nuclear radiation ... and, just like Creation Scientists, they too (sensibly) prefer to use lead to protect themselves from its DESTRUCTIVE power!!!!:pac::):D

DTrotter

J C wrote: »

...I don't believe in 'fixity of species' ... with the exception of Human Beings ... if that is what you mean.

Speciation occurs rapidly, sometimes instantaneously .. and is a key concept that is accepted by Creation Science.:pac::):D

....but it is speciation using pre-existing genetic diversity that was originally intelligently created by God ... and not a product of random mutagenesis ... as Evolutionists would have you believe!!!:pac::)

I have found that this belief in the suppposed 'awesome power' of mutagenesis somehow crumbles for practically all Evolutionists when they are afforded the opportunity to be exposed to a mutagenic agent like nuclear radiation ... and, just like Creation Scientists, they too (sensibly) prefer to use lead to protect themselves from its DESTRUCTIVE power!!!!:pac::):D

Correct use of smilies, no fail this time.

J C

DTrotter wrote: »

Noahs Ark is funnier, maybe a bit of incest to calm them down after.

...you are ALSO a direct descendant of these early post-diluvian marriages between close relatives ...so I wouldn't go all moralistic and judgemental about them, if I were you ... especially when there wasn't any significantly increased risks of genetic diseases at the time from these unions, in the first place!!!!:pac::):D

J C

DTrotter wrote: »

Correct use of smilies, no fail this time.

...thanks!!:pac::):D

Galvasean

Good to see you're back J C. Fancy answering AtomicHorror's questions?

DTrotter

J C wrote: »

...you are ALSO a descendant of these early post-diluvian marriages between close relatives ...so I wouldn't go all judgemental about them, if I was you ... especially when there wasn't any significantly increased risks of genetic diseases from these unions, in the first place!!!!:pac::):D

I take it you haven't been to Blackpool :eek:

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Good to see you're back J C. Fancy answering AtomicHorror's questions?

I have done so (repeatedly) already...in postings #15679 and #15951 to name but a few!!!!

The discoveries of Creation Science do bear repeating ... so I will repeat my answer to AH questions AGAIN below.:D:eek:

wrote:

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
J C, you have several times repeated the assertion that there are no examples of "increasing genetic information" apparently demanded by evolution. A few months back I asked for you to clarify the meaning of "genetic information" and to define what would constitute a measurable increase in that.

So, you said:
Originally Posted by J C
1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.

2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.

....even a computer model of how either 1 or 2 above could occur will do.



To which I responded:

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
1. A full definition would require that you define what you mean by "information". That word has several related but distinct meanings. I'm also not sure what you mean by "functional specific biological components", is that "functional-specific" or "functional, specific"? I know you'll see this as pedantic, but science requires exact and unambiguous meaning.

2. Again with the spontaneous, single-step majick. This doesn't happen in evolution and the only people suggesting otherwise are creationists.

A new gene doesn't just pop into existence. New bases and chunks of DNA are frequently added to the genome, but these are typically non-coding. A new gene can emerge either by one of these stretches of non-coding DNA becoming coding or by the duplication of an existing gene to a new locus followed by its modification.

There are countless examples of this.

CCR5d32, a mutation of gene CCR5, removes the gene's function as a chemokine receptor and replaces it with a function as a HIV-binding decoy. This confers AIDS resistance in homozygotes and delayed onset in heterozygotes. As the function of CCRs are multiply redundant, the receptor function is not lost even in homozygotes. This means there is a net gain in function.

Can you please address the above, or will I take it that you withdraw the assertion that we have not observed "increased genetic information"?

Finally, I'm very sad to see that after all my hard work you're still not willing to address my rebuttals of your replies to me or take the time to refute my answers to your own questions.

You say that this is all just an effort to confuse people, but I will be most happy to clarify any point of science which confuses you or anyone else. You need only ask. So please, do not use ignorance of my meaning as an excuse not to engage.

So, just to be clear, are you conceding these points, J C?

I have ALREADY adequately addressed the above questions as follows in posting #15679
1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.

Such components are "functional specific" i.e they have a specific function were even minor changes to their chemical structure will make them non-functional - and therefore spontaneous systems are incapable of producing such components with any degree of practical efficiency....the combinations of non-functional chemical combinations vastly outnumber the functional ones and when you add the requirement of specificity they become statistical impossibilities. It's analagous to a great big warehouse where workers go searching at random for various components from amongst billions of DIFFERENT components in the hope that they will eventually construct a functional car ... there is only ONE WAY that such a vehicle can be constructed ... by the applicance of Intelligent Design ... ditto 'with bells on it' in the case of living organisms!!!

2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.
Your example of CCR5d32, where a mutation of gene CCR5, removes the gene's function as a chemokine receptor and replaces it with a function as a HIV-binding decoy indicates that multiple functionality is already built into this system. ... as you have confirmed yourself the function of CCRs are multiply redundant...and the receptor function is not lost even in homozygotes.
Multiple redundancy is also a definitive indicator of Intelligent Design!!!

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

I have done so (repeatedly) already.

You did so once, after pages of the kind of spamming you did just now. He responded. You have yet to address his responses, or his answers to your questions.

J C

DTrotter wrote: »

I take it you haven't been to Blackpool :eek:

...no .... what is in Blackpool...that you have taken such 'a shine' to???

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You did so once, after pages of the kind of spamming you did just now. He responded. You have yet to address his responses, or his answers to your questions.

...that sounds something like...."you didn't answer the question ... he asked ... about the answer you gave ... to the question ... he asked ... about the answer you gave ... to the question he asked ... about the answer you gave.... "ad infinitum!!!!!!:pac::):D

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that is the second point. All these people, including Jesus, were apparently aware of the prophecies they were supposed to be fulfilling.

Of course, Jesus especially. Even today the Jews who don't accept Jesus still await a Messiah that will fulfill prophecies relating to Him in their Bible which Christians call the Old Testament. Assuming Jesus wasn't the Messiah, and that the real Messiah is still to come, if He exists don't you think He will know that He is the Messiah when He does come? If not then their is something wrong. Any Messiah who doesn't know that He is the Messiah isn't. And that doesn't mean that anybody who thinks they are the Messiah are. If we had a Jesus who never claimed He was the Messiah then there would be something wrong. At least He got one part of it right, He thought He was, hence the things He claimed about Himself, which if not true make Him either a deluded fool or a cunning fraud, but certainly not a good and wiser teacher which the world likes to call Him. He can't be both good and wise unless He was the Messiah who was to come. The Resurrection is what verifies His claims.

Wicknight wrote: »

How then is it shocking that they appear to match within the framework of the prophecies?

Before Christianity came along, how many people could you have ascribed as fulfilling the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled? Even after Christianity how many can you find that fulfill more that 3 of the prophetic pictures that Jesus fulfilled? There is nobody.

Wicknight wrote: »

The same reason that I imagine you would not be willing to accept as balanced and fair what a Mormon has to say about the New Testament.

Which was my point in asking you the question about accepting the Jewish interpretation of the New Testament. You seem to have no problem accepting their assessment of the NT whatsoever.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You did so once, after pages of the kind of spamming you did just now. ......

...it isn't spamming .... it's 'mental spanking' ... of the most severe variety :eek:...
...and when you fully assimilate the past few pages ... your minds won't be able to 'sit down' for a week after it!!!!:pac::):D

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

It sure will be biased as to what the evidence can mean.

Thank you. We finally agree that fixing your conclusions before deciding what's "evidence" is not science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationist scientists, however, have valid scientific explanations of the evidence - at least as much as the evolutionists do.

Assuming you're not trolling -- and four years into this thread, I must assume that you're not -- I find it quite incredible that a fully normal adult seems to be unable to assess the relative merits of very simple arguments, or even to assess the competence of the people putting them forward.

I've read quite a lot of creationist junk and it's laughable.

Not just a brief lop-sided grin as you'd see in any quiet D4 cafe on a Thursday morning, but snort-out-loud, tears-down-you-cheeks, thigh-slapping peals of laughter. I've seen JC claim that lions survive on meat that's been the floating dead for half a year, and another wild claim which implied that the wonderfully sleepy Koala made it from Mount Ararat to Sydney at above sprinting speed, that a peg-secured wooden boat is as strong as a modern welded steel hull, the stony crust of the earth is floating on water, and the best one which broadly said that evolution is false because stars don't have sex to produce baby stars.

You don't need to study biology or engineering or science for years to be able to see that these things are just dumb.

Like seriously, have you ever tried to float a stone on water? What do you think would happen? How would you assess the degree of common-sense of somebody putting forward this idea?

And at what point do you take responsibility for the wisdom of the ideas you hold?

robindch

J C wrote: »

....waits for the usual deluge of abuse and insults to my conventional scientific qualifications!!!!!

It must be a bit like the blasphemy laws -- it's rather difficult to abuse or insult what's almost certainly not there.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Not just a brief lop-sided grin as you'd see in any quiet D4 cafe on a Thursday morning, but snort-out-loud, tears-down-you-cheeks, thigh-slapping peals of laughter. I've seen JC claim that lions survive on meat that's been the floating dead for half a year, and another wild claim which implied that the wonderfully sleepy Koala made it from Mount Ararat to Sydney at above sprinting speed, that a peg-secured wooden boat is as strong as a modern welded steel hull, the stony crust of the earth is floating on water, and the best one which broadly said that evolution is false because stars don't have sex to produce baby stars.

Pretty good summary of this thread to be honest.

Problem though is that the Creationists are probably reading that list and going "See, I told you we had valid scientific arguments..."

If you don't know what valid science is, or don't care, if you don't hold yourself and your beliefs to this standard, then you can pass anything off as science. this is why Dawkins, quite sensibly in my opinion, stopped debating with Creationists, because they were not both working from the same rule book of what standard something has to be to be considered a valid meeting scientific standards.

Saying that it is possible for the Flood to fossilise millions of dead animals under miles of solid rock because there is a known process of natural quick drying concrete is not meeting scientific standards. No one has bothered to divise a test to determine if that process is at work in all rock formations that contain fossils (the scientists because the idea is ridiculous and the Creationists because they must know that would never pass close examination)

But the Creationists don't care, they say You asked us how this could happen, here this is how it could happen.{/i]

getz

J C wrote: »

...no .... what is in Blackpool...that you have taken such 'a shine' to???

i live near blackpool, what am i missing ?

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...that sounds something like...."you didn't answer the question ... he asked ... about the answer you gave ... to the question ... he asked ... about the answer you gave ... to the question he asked ... about the answer you gave.... "ad infinitum!!!!!!:pac::):D

It's common practise to respond to your opponents' latest points in a debate, not to ignore them.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Of course, Jesus especially.

Ok, but does that some what nullify the Christian claims that Jesus "fulfilled" these prophecies thus demonstrating he was the Messiah?

Farmer - "Jesus, quick question, where were you born?"

Jesus - (to himself - remember say Bethlehem, say Bethlehem, say Bethlehem) "Er, Bethleham, yes I was born there. Sure I couldn't be the Messiah otherwise could I! Har har!" (to himself - must remember not to be too loud when speaking and to go to Galilee)

Soul Winner wrote: »

And that doesn't mean that anybody who thinks they are the Messiah are.

No, but it does mean that anyone who thinks they are the Messiah knows how to act and behave in order to fit within interpretations of what the Messiah should be.

Soul Winner wrote: »

He can't be both good and wise unless He was the Messiah who was to come. The Resurrection is what verifies His claims.

Well he can act good and wise (not that I think he did) which is how most cult leaders act, at least to their followers.

But the point is how can anyone hold up the prophecies Jesus fulfilled as evidence for supernatural goings on if Jesus or his followers knew the prophecies he was supposed to fulfil in order for people to take him seriously as a Messiah.

The only way a prophecy works is if the prophecy and the events prophacised are not connected. For example it would be some what stupid for me to make a "prophecy" that I'm going to have a cheese burger tomorrow. Or if my friend did that and then told me it. In both cases I am able to simply fulfil the prophecy.

If someone made the prophecy and I didn't know about it until after I had had the cheese burger that would be more impressive.

If Jesus didn't know any of the Old Testament prophecies but managed to fulfil them anyway (and lets not forget that it is debated among Christians and Jews if he actually did that in the first place) that would be far more impressive.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Before Christianity came along, how many people could you have ascribed as fulfilling the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled?

Loads of people. As we have already discussed at length there were tons of "messiahs" around the time of Jesus, some who had far more followers than him during their life time. I don't think they would have got very far if they weren't ticking off the prophecies just like Jesus was.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Which was my point in asking you the question about accepting the Jewish interpretation of the New Testament. You seem to have no problem accepting their assessment of the NT whatsoever.

It isn't their assessment of the NT that is important (are you saying Jews are getting the claims of Christians that Jesus fulfilled prophicy wrong?)

Again using the Mormon example that would be like saying that the problem Christians have with Mormons is simply that they don't understand the Book of Mormon, which clearly it isn't. It is the claims in the Book of Mormon that Christians feel do not match up with the New Testament.

Likewise the Jews say the New Testament claims get the Old Testament wrong.

The interesting bit for me is the claims that the early Christians get the Old Testament prophecies wrong in a certain way and then run with it, stating that a prophecy was fulfilled but in a way (according to Jews) that doesn't match how it was supposed to be.

This would seem to be, if one accepts the Jewish account, evidence that the early Christians were doing exactly what I mentioned above, actually trying to fulfil prophecy but since they miss-understood the prophecy itself they were going about it the wrong way.

It is a bit like when you go to a fortune teller and she says do you have a dead uncle and just for the fun of it you say "Yes, Dave, he died their last year" and she spends the next 30 minutes "talking" to dead Dave who never actually existed. The very fact that she is doing this demonstrates that she isn't talking to the dead because Dave never existed.