The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

getz wrote: »

i live near blackpool, what am i missing ?

... I don't know ... you're living there ... please tell me!!!

...and could I remind you that YOU started this whole debate about Blackpool with the following cryptic statement and I quote "I take it you haven't been to Blackpool" !!!!:eek::D

J C

robindch wrote: »

.....I've seen JC claim that lions survive on meat that's been the floating dead for half a year,

...I didn't claim that the dead meat was floating - I claimed that it was buried under boggy anaerobic conditions - 'pickled' if you will - and with fresh tissue now recovered from several thousand year old Dinosaur fossils, I do think that it was entirely possible that such meat was available in vast quantities in the immediate aftermath of the Flood!!!
....we are ALSO still digging up remakably well preserved 'bog butter' and 'bog bodies' several thousand years after they were buried...
....it is the Evolutionists in general (and Robin in particular) that is looking silly on this one!!!:pac::)

robindch wrote: »

.....and another wild claim which implied that the wonderfully sleepy Koala made it from Mount Ararat to Sydney at above sprinting speed,

...ok let's say the 'sleepy Koala' and his descendants spread out from Ararat in the direction of Australia at a 'sleepy' average speed of just one mile per day ... they would cover the 10,000 or so miles to Australia in less than 30 years...and if they averaged a 'snails pace' of just 200 metres per day they would cover the 17,000 km in about 230 years. I have found that Evolutionists are notoriously poor at mathematics ... despite always talking in large numbers rounded to the nearest billion!!!!:eek:

robindch wrote: »

.....that a peg-secured wooden boat is as strong as a modern welded steel hull,

... and I gave examples of very large modern wooden hulled vessels that approached the size of the Ark ...and sailed quite well.
One of the largest moden wooden ships, the Appomattox, is often compared with the Ark. Measuring 319 feet long, with a beam of 42 feet, it was reinforced with steel bracing to keep it together, and it had to be bilged continuously by steam pumps in order to battle constantly leaking beams as stresses on the hull caused the timbers to separate.
Skeptics frequently point to this as an example of the vulnerability of wooden ships over 300 feet long, and argue that this demonstrates that Noah's Ark (carrying no steel bracing or steam bilge pumps), could not possibly have been practical. However, the Appomattox was designed completely differently to the Ark, being a steam powered ship and not a barge. It was also subjected to different stresses caused by having to tow a large unpowered barge behind it.

It is noteworthy that whilst much is made of comparisons between the Appomattox and the Ark, the unpowered barge which was towed by the Appomattox is never mentioned by the Skeptics. This is particularly odd since this ship (the Santiago), is a far more relevant vessel with which to compare the Ark.
Like the Ark it was made entirely of wood, carrying no steel bracing. Like the Ark it was not powered either by steam or sail. Like the Ark it was built as a barge. Not only this, but its dimension are even larger than those of the Appomattox, being 324 feet long, with a beam of 46 feet.

Unlike the Appomattox, the Santiago DID NOT SUFFER FROM LEAKING PROBLEMS. It served on the Great Lakes as a towed barge for almost 20 years (1899-1918), before finally being swamped in a gale. This wooden barge (though not as large as the Ark), WAS LARGER THAN the Appomattox which towed it, BUT SUFFERED FROM NONE OF THE STRUCTURAL DEFECTS of the Appotomox and had a service history over twice as long as that of the Appomattox, despite serving on the Great Lakes, notorious for their storm conditions and unpredictable waters. This is a far more accurate comparison to draw with the Ark, and demonstrates that wooden barges over 300 feet long are entirely practical.

….and of course we should not forget the fact that Noah’s Ark was constructed by Noah under the direct inspiration of God……and He knows all there is to know about Marine Engineering and Ship’s Architecture!!!

robindch wrote: »

.....the stony crust of the earth is floating on water,

...I didn't say the crust was floating on water ... merely that there was water contained beneath it under enormous pressure that burst forth when the Flood started ... just like modern artesian springs ... only on a vastly greater in scale.
Indeed today, the Arabian, Australian and Saharan Artesian Basins are remnants of the global Ante-Diluvian sub-terranean water system...and many cave systems are the remnants of some of the exit points of the fountains of the great deep.

robindch wrote: »

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

....that certainly applies to the unfounded rambling 'stories' of Evolutionists!!!:)
...I also agree that you don't need a degree to come to a conclusion about how ridiculous Spontaneous Evolution really is ... but having a degree certainly can help !!:D

robindch wrote: »

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

....Robin, as an Evolutionist who believes that muck spontaneously turned into Man with nothing added but time, all I will say to you is .... touché Robin...touché, 'with bells on it'!!!!:pac::):D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

and with fresh tissue now recovered from several thousand year old Dinosaur fossils,

Fresh you say? As a palaeontology enthusiast I would be interested to know where you heard this.

J C wrote:

....we are ALSO still digging up remakably well preserved 'bog butter' and 'bog bodies' several thousand years after they were buried...

Can you safely eat the bog bodies?

J C wrote:

...ok let's say the 'sleepy Koala' and his descendants spread out from Ararat in the direction of Australia at a 'sleepy' average speed of just one mile per day ... they would cover the 10,000 or so miles to Australia in less than 30 years...and if they averaged a 'snails pace' of just 200 metres per day they would cover the 17,000 km in about 230 years. I have found that Evolutionists are notoriously poor at mathematics ... despite always talking in large numbers rounded to the nearest billion!!!!:eek:

That doesn't quite explain how they migrated across the sea.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....and with fresh tissue now recovered from several thousand year old Dinosaur fossils,
Galvasean
Fresh you say? As a palaeontology enthusiast I would be interested to know where you heard this.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html
http://plexpedia.com/view-1615
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/767157/posts
http://creation.com/schweitzers-dangerous-discovery
..and the following report quotes Evolutionists as saying "Far from a freakish accident of preservation, the researchers said, fragile fresh tissue inside dinosaur bones may turn out to be common. Indeed, a quick examination of three other dinosaur specimens revealed similar microscopic tissues inside the bones,"
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2005/03/29/soft_tissue_is_discovered_inside_a_dinosaur_fossil/

...do remember that this tissue is thousands of years old ... and we are only talking about months old meat being available to the Lions on the Ark.
Do also bear in mind that, thousands of years old frozen Mammoth carcasses are STILL edible in some cases ... and have been fed to sled dogs without any ill effects ... and there are so many mammoth remains up in the Arctic ... that they have become the main source of commercial ivory since the CITES ban on Elephant ivory some years ago!!!!:eek::D
http://www.scrimshanders.com/pages/about_ivory.php?sid=1
http://mitchross.com/blog/index.php?itemid=245

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....we are ALSO still digging up remakably well preserved 'bog butter' and 'bog bodies' several thousand years after they were buried...
Galvasean
Can you safely eat the bog bodies?

... I must confess that I would prefer a 'Big Mac' and chips myself ... but if I were a hungry carnivore and there was nothing else available ... I probably WOULD eat it!!!:)

...and here is an article on some very tasty bog butter that was hundreds of years old !!!]
http://www.ipcc.ie/infobogbutter.html

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...ok let's say the 'sleepy Koala' and his descendants spread out from Ararat in the direction of Australia at a 'sleepy' average speed of just one mile per day ... they would cover the 10,000 or so miles to Australia in less than 30 years...and if they averaged a 'snails pace' of just 200 metres per day they would cover the 17,000 km in about 230 years. I have found that Evolutionists are notoriously poor at mathematics ... despite always talking in large numbers rounded to the nearest billion!!!!
Galvasean
That doesn't quite explain how they migrated across the sea.

...that is easily explained by the land bridges that all scientists agree existed between Australia and the rest of Asia ... and disappeared due to a combination of rising ses levels due to the Ice Age meltwaters returning to the oceans and the tectonic submergence of some of these landmasses!!:cool:
...and you will find all of your questions answered here ...
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html

...and now that you have had all of your questions answered (repeatedly and comprehensively) over the past thousand plus pages ... are you going to give up believing in that old Spontaneous Evolution nonesense ... and believe on Jesus Christ instead ... to save you???

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...and now that you have had all of your questions answered (repeatedly and comprehensively) over the past thousand plus pages ... are you going to give up believing in that old Spontaneous Evolution nonesense ... and believe on Jesus Christ instead ... to save you???

Evolution is not something that you believe in any more than you believe in gravity. It's something you learn about in a science book along with all the other things that have been proven to exist

I'm sure it's been asked but I'm not going to read the entire thread. How do creationists explain the fact that we need a new flu vaccine every year? Please answer yourself and don't link to a christian 'science' page

And how do you reconcile the fact that the entire scientific community, bar a few people with an agenda, says you're wrong?

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

...I didn't claim that the dead meat was floating - I claimed that it was buried under boggy anaerobic conditions - 'pickled' if you will - and with fresh tissue now recovered from several thousand year old Dinosaur fossils, I do think that it was entirely possible that such meat was available in vast quantities in the immediate aftermath of the Flood!!!
....we are ALSO still digging up remakably well preserved 'bog butter' and 'bog bodies' several thousand years after they were buried...
....it is the Evolutionists in general (and Robin in particular) that is looking silly on this one!!!:pac::)

There's a difference between fossilised and preserved.

J C wrote: »

...ok let's say the 'sleepy Koala' and his descendants spread out from Ararat in the direction of Australia at a 'sleepy' average speed of just one mile per day ... they would cover the 10,000 or so miles to Australia in less than 30 years...

Quite an acheivment for an animal that is only awake 5 hours a day and has an average life span less than 20 years.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

Only if that means atheists cannot do science.

But belief in any form of origins need not stop one doing good science - it just means one has to be careful not to allow their presuppositions to cause them to distort the evidence. Evolutionists and creationists both face that pressure - indeed, all scientists come with 'established' science in mind when they do research, and have to make sure they do not adjust their findings accordingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

Yes, I have been struck by that too.

But I realise that prejudice and peer pressure are powerful tools that reinforce orthodoxy and can blind one to anything that threatens their cherished beliefs. If Evolution were undermined, my, what an alarming alternative would be elevated!

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

Well, JC and I have had some laughs at evolutionist's desperate attempts to identify the King's New Clothes.

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.

The whole muck-to-man fairy-tale has thrown up some crackers. :pac:

But in the midst of our laughter, JC and I are deeply saddened that you guys take it seriously and allow it to keep you from hearing God's voice in the Bible. It's not just a disagreement about science, but a matter that denies the reliability of God's word. Your soul, not just your intellect, is at stake.

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,

JC has refuted that, so I'll pass by.

and the best one which broadly said that evolution is false because stars don't have sex to produce baby stars.

Really? I missed that. I've never heard a creationist express this - care to give the ref?

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

But scientists too can be guilty of carelessness in reading, or deliberately caricaturing the opposition argument.

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?

Where did you hear creationists say stone floats on water? I recall many references to vast quantities of water being under the crust, but never understood the water causing it to float. Or are you denying the presence of underground water???

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

From the beginning. Any mistakes I gladly acknowledge when they are proven to me. It's just that I don't take another's prejudices or presuppositions for proof.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Evolution is not something that you believe in any more than you believe in gravity. It's something you learn about in a science book along with all the other things that have been proven to exist

It all depends on what you call 'Evolution'. If you mean that matter spontaneously generated genetic information then such an idea is both logically and observationally unfounded and it therefore can only be believed in through faith alone - and it is a very poorly founded faith, if I may say so myself!!!:D
If you mean that populations change over time through a combination of natural/artificial selection acting on pre-existing genetic diversity then I would agree that such a hypothesis has a scientific validity approaching that of Gravity!!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm sure it's been asked but I'm not going to read the entire thread. How do creationists explain the fact that we need a new flu vaccine every year? Please answer yourself and don't link to a christian 'science' page

...viruses have enormous genetic diversity potential inbuilt so to speak...and they continuously change. They behave like computer viruses in that they have apparently intelligently designed systems that facilitate them in making these changes successfully. Humans and other creatures have equally ingenious (and intelligently designed) systems that 'learn' how to overcome the latest viral threats with which their bodies are assaulted - something like a self-programming Norton antivirus programme.
Flu virus can kill and that is why new vaccines are playing an increasing role in balancing up the 'war' between viruses and their Human hosts ... in favour of the Human by artificially triggering their anti-virus programmes before they are actually attacked by the new virus ... and therefore hopefully, if and when they are attacked the effects will be negligible...something like the Intelligently Designed 'patches' that are made available to protect your computer from the latest computer virus attack.
All of this has Intelligent Design 'written all over it' ... and none of it indicates that Pondslime could EVER spntaneously turn into Man!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And how do you reconcile the fact that the entire scientific community, bar a few people with an agenda, says you're wrong?

I don't think that most scientists have anything to say about the origins issue at all ... most are conducting highly specialised research into issues of operative science and don't study (or indeed have much interest in) the forensics of origins research.

You could say that the origins question occupies the minds of a very small minority of scientists who scientifically study Creation and Spontaneous Evolution from their own agenda-driven perspectives ... the establishment of Atheistic Humanism on the part of the Spontaneous Evolutionists ... and the gathering of scientific evidence for the existence and actions of God for the Theistic Creationists.

Between these two small groups lies the vast majority of scientists who are too pre-occupied with meeting next month's mortgage repayment to worry unduly about whether they were Created ex nihilo or Spontaneously Evolved from Pondslime - and who oscillate along the spectrum between both beliefs depending on the mood they are in ... or the latest book they have read!!!!

...or indeed the latest posting on this thread!!!!:pac::):D

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

There's a difference between fossilised and preserved.

...yes the Dino bones were fossilised over thousands of years - yet with recoverable soft tissue ... the bog bodies, and frozen mammoths were preserved over thousands of years and the bog butter was preserved over hundreds of years...and the original point that I was making is that some carrion could be preserved in the flood processes over a few months for the lions on the Ark to feast upon it!!!!

...and Robin was scoffing at the idea!!:eek::)

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...ok let's say the 'sleepy Koala' and his descendants spread out from Ararat in the direction of Australia at a 'sleepy' average speed of just one mile per day ... they would cover the 10,000 or so miles to Australia in less than 30 years...

Mickeroo
Quite an acheivment for an animal that is only awake 5 hours a day and has an average life span less than 20 years.

...so are you saying that a Koala couldn't manage to move one mile per day or less than 0.2 miles per hour (in a 5 hour day)???
You are also assuming that Koalas were ALWAYS as 'sleepy' and slow moving as they are today... which may not have been the case ... natural selection could easily have selected for 'fast' Koalas on the way to Australia and 'slow' Koalas when they had safely arrived!!!!:):D

BTW the main reason that present-day Koalas are so sethargic is because of their poor and poisonous diet of Eucalyptus leaves ... and the fact that most of them are chronically infected with Chlamydia probably doesn't help either. Healthy specimens leaving the Ark and 'munching' on wholesome nutritious food, could have sprinted to Australia (as Robin ironically suggested in his posting #16226) in as little as 10 years!!!!:eek::D
....anyway, EVEN IF it took them 1,000 years to get to Australia their average speed would only be 0.03 miles per day or about 10 yards per hour - for a 5 hour day ... and there are some snails out there who could beat that performance!!!:D:eek:

....and could I remind you of the first rule when you are in a hole ... STOP DIGGING!!!:D:eek:

...yourself and Robin have lost this point ... so move on to something more constructive ... like getting yourselves Saved in Jesus Christ!!!:D

J C

Just something I have noticed about this thread.

Robin 'pops up' to ask a question, gets an answer that demolishes his hypothesis and he 'disappears' only to 'reappear' some days/weeks later with another 'potshot' at the Bible and/or Creationists ... and the cycle repeats itself!!!

But this is not all that happens ... my answer to Robin is usually then challenged by some OTHER evolutionist(s) on the Thread ... who also eventually succumb to the cold logic of Creation Science!!!

....it seems that Robin has a number of (equally hapless) 'little helpers' ... while I stand alone ... with only Jesus Christ and Wolfsbane to help me!!!!:pac::):D

....but this is more than adequate ... because Jesus did promise that "where two or more are gathered in my name there will I also be."

... and with God on our side who can come against us?:pac::):D

...may the infinite peace and love of Jesus Christ be with you all.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

It all depends on what you call 'Evolution'. If you mean that matter spontaneously generated genetic information then such an idea is both logically and observationally unfounded and it therefore can only be believed in through faith alone - and it is a very poorly founded faith, if I may say so myself!!!:D

Well firstly I would point out that that is not evolution, that is called abiogenesis and is not a part of the theory of evolution. I would also point out that it was largely achieved in a lab a few months ago:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html

Genetic information is just a particular combination of chemicals in a particular order and remember that it didn't have to start out with the millions of genes we have, it could have been much simpler at the start. In a universe that's 14 billion years old and which contains trillions of planets it's actually quite likely that these chemicals would combine in the right order at some stage, it just took 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion attempts. Of course if you decide that the world is 10,000 years old, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.......

J C wrote: »

If you mean that populations change over time through a combination of natural/artificial selection acting on pre-existing genetic diversity then I would agree that such a hypothesis has a scientific validity approaching that of Gravity!!!!

So you do believe in evolution then?

J C wrote: »

...viruses have enormous genetic diversity potential inbuilt so to speak...and they continuously change. They behave like computer viruses in that they have apparently intelligently designed systems that facilitate them in making these changes successfully. Humans and other creatures have equally ingenious (and intelligently designed) systems that 'learn' how to overcome the latest viral threats with which their bodies are assaulted - something like a self-programming Norton antivirus programme.
Flu virus can kill and that is why new vaccines are playing an increasing role in balancing up the 'war' between viruses and their Human hosts ... in favour of the Human by artificially triggering their anti-virus programmes before they are actually attacked by the new virus ... and therefore hopefully, if and when they are attacked the effects will be negligible...something like the Intelligently Designed 'patches' that are made available to protect your computer from the latest computer virus attack.
All of this has Intelligent Design 'written all over it' ... and none of it indicates that Pondslime could EVER spntaneously turn into Man!!!

So just to be clear here, you agree that the viruses change over time and that our immune systems have to generate new antibodies to cope with these new strains of the viruses, which the vaccines allow us to do?

I feel it incumbent upon me to point out that if you believe that the viruses change over time then you actually believe in evolution, you just disagree on what causes them to change.

Also, I'm sure you know that there was an attempt to have intelligent design accepted as science and taught in classrooms in America. I'd like to quote the judge from the trial responding to the attempt to proclaim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system and no work had been done to show otherwise:

In fact, on cross examination, professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was 'not good enough.'

He was then forced to admit that he had not read most of those fifty-eight peer reviewed papers. The judge then summed up by saying:

Thankfully there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system...It's our defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote those books toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. Their efforts help us to combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, professor Behe and the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling the future generations of scientists, don't bother.

The judge also described a proclamation that the bacterial flagellar motor was irreducibly complex to be a move of "breathtaking inanity" when it was shown very easily to be wrong.

Intelligent design was kicked out of the American court system in spectacular fashion and judged not to be science. Intelligent design is not science and the vast majority of christians in the world would agree with that statement

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

But belief in any form of origins need not stop one doing good science - it just means one has to be careful not to allow their presuppositions to cause them to distort the evidence.

Seriously, wolfsbane, you've just agreed that throwing away what you don't like is bad science. How can you (apparently sincerely) believe that people who do this can do good science?

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I realise that prejudice and peer pressure are powerful tools that reinforce orthodoxy and can blind one to anything that threatens their cherished beliefs.

My point was directed to you, since you say that you are unable to evaluate evidence and you are unable to evaluate the reliability of people who provide you evidence, except to look at the letters after their name.

If you don't want to debate your beliefs and how you arrive at them, then please let me know and I'll not trouble you again on this topic.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Where did you hear creationists say stone floats on water? I recall many references to vast quantities of water being under the crust, but never understood the water causing it to float.

Amongst much else, creationist beliefs require the earth's crust to float upon seven vertical miles of water (the stuff that disappeared when the flood did). Most commentators agree that stone does not float, so I'm wondering exactly why you seem unperturbed by this implication of your belief.

robindch

J C wrote: »

Robin 'pops up' to ask a question, gets an answer that demolishes his hypothesis and he 'disappears' only to 'reappear' some days/weeks later with another 'potshot' at the Bible and/or Creationists ... and the cycle repeats itself!!!

You'll recall from this post, that I was asking wolfsbane a question. I don't really recall asking you a serious or even non-rhetorical question for a long time, quite possibly in years.

J C wrote: »

Just something I have noticed about this thread.

You've only noticed this now? :rolleyes:

Truly, sir, you would make a great "Creation Scientist"(tm)!

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But belief in any form of origins need not stop one doing good science - it just means one has to be careful not to allow their presuppositions to cause them to distort the evidence.
Seriously, wolfsbane, you've just agreed that throwing away what you don't like is bad science. How can you (apparently sincerely) believe that people who do this can do good science?

No, I agreed that pretending the evidence supports something when it does not (or the converse) would be bad science. Refusing to come to a conclusion you know to be false makes sense to any logical person. If the evidence seems to support what you know to be false, then you admit that and wait for fuller evidence that will tell the real tale.

You have not answered my query about how atheists can do good science. Does their presupposition against a Creator/Designer rule them out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But I realise that prejudice and peer pressure are powerful tools that reinforce orthodoxy and can blind one to anything that threatens their cherished beliefs.
My point was directed to you, since you say that you are unable to evaluate evidence

None of us are able to evaluate the evidence in all fields - does that rule you out from trusting the evolutionists who present the case in fields you are not expert in?

and you are unable to evaluate the reliability of people who provide you evidence, except to look at the letters after their name.

I never said such a thing. I am able to evaluate the reliability of several creationist scientists who are personally known to me. I have found them both good and honest men and women.

As to letters after one's name - yes, when it comes to evaluating the scientific authority of anyone, I do expect them to be conventionally qualified. If they have not acquired a degree or higher degree in their subject, I would look elsewhere. Of course, their qualifications are not everything - one expects to see some evidence of on-going expertise and experience in their field.

If you don't want to debate your beliefs and how you arrive at them, then please let me know and I'll not trouble you again on this topic.

I'm happy to do so - and have done so several times on this thread. Maybe it is that you just don't like the answers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Where did you hear creationists say stone floats on water? I recall many references to vast quantities of water being under the crust, but never understood the water causing it to float.
Amongst much else, creationist beliefs require the earth's crust to float upon seven vertical miles of water (the stuff that disappeared when the flood did). Most commentators agree that stone does not float, so I'm wondering exactly why you seem unperturbed by this implication of your belief.

You need to pay more attention to what creationists actually teach, rather than make up straw-men. The water that covered the earth in the Flood is mostly still on the surface - just that the surface is now formed into high mountains and deep seabed valleys. If the earth's surface were made uniform, the water would cover it by about seven miles. So I'm afraid you have confused your top and your bottom.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

How many Messiahs can you name who fulfilled its description?
Rejected by His people -
Despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.

Reckoned by them as an offender against God -
We esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted.

But actually their substitutionary atoning sacrifice -
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.

You make His soul an offering for sin,

For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.

Judicially executed -
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;

Innocent, not a revolutionary -
He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

Raised from the dead and ascended to glory -
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong.

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

Dr. King does not seem to fulfil most of its description. Not a Jew. Not reckoned by his people as an offender against God. Not a substitutionary atoning sacrifice. Not judicially executed (unless you are into a conspiracy theory). Not raised from the dead and ascended to glory.

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!"

As I have showed above, the prophecy is not unspecific.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

How many Messiahs can you name who fulfilled its description?
Rejected by His people -

All of them. Can you name one Messiah claimant who wasn't "rejected by men". Even now you reject all of them but Jesus

wolfsbane wrote: »

Reckoned by them as an offender against God -

Again all of them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But actually their substitutionary atoning sacrifice -

Again, all of them. The vast majority of Messiah claimants around the time of Jesus were executed by the Jewish authorities or the Romans. Those that weren't were killed by their own followers.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Judicially executed

All of them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Raised from the dead and ascended to glory -
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong.

Leaving aside that what you quoted doesn't state resurrection, resurrection is one way that Christians interpret what that says, there were other Messiah claimants who's followers claimed were brought back to life from being dead.

So again, what exactly distinguishes Jesus from all the other people claiming to be the Messiah except for having better PR?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Dr. King does not seem to fulfil most of its description. Not a Jew. Not reckoned by his people as an offender against God. Not a substitutionary atoning sacrifice. Not judicially executed (unless you are into a conspiracy theory). Not raised from the dead and ascended to glory.

All true. But then that isn't what the prophecies say.

That is what Christians say the prophecies mean after they have the narration of the Jesus story to match them with.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
How many Messiahs can you name who fulfilled its description?
Rejected by His people -
All of them. Can you name one Messiah claimant who wasn't "rejected by men". Even now you reject all of them but Jesus

Many of them were not rejected by their people. It was the occupying forces who rejected them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Reckoned by them as an offender against God -
Again all of them.

Really? Their nation rejected them as offenders against God? Did not regard them as national heroes, albeit defeated ones?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But actually their substitutionary atoning sacrifice -
Again, all of them. The vast majority of Messiah claimants around the time of Jesus were executed by the Jewish authorities or the Romans. Those that weren't were killed by their own followers.

So they were sacrifices of atonement offered to God in the place of their people? They bore their people's sins and God was appeased?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Judicially executed
All of them.

None assassinated by rivals? Or died on the run?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Raised from the dead and ascended to glory -
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong.
Leaving aside that what you quoted doesn't state resurrection, resurrection is one way that Christians interpret what that says, there were other Messiah claimants who's followers claimed were brought back to life from being dead.

OK, that's news to me. Care to identify them? As to it being resurrection, anyone who is executed but goes on to prolong His days surely is in that catagory?

So again, what exactly distinguishes Jesus from all the other people claiming to be the Messiah except for having better PR?

Fulfilling all the criteria, not just some; and gaining a following of hundreds of millions of former heathens over nearly 2000 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Dr. King does not seem to fulfil most of its description. Not a Jew. Not reckoned by his people as an offender against God. Not a substitutionary atoning sacrifice. Not judicially executed (unless you are into a conspiracy theory). Not raised from the dead and ascended to glory.
All true. But then that isn't what the prophecies say.

That is what Christians say the prophecies mean after they have the narration of the Jesus story to match them with.

I don't see any other possible (honest) interpretation of this passage. If you would care to give one, I'm sure several here would like to see your hermeneutical skills at work.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

....Intelligent design was kicked out of the American court system in spectacular fashion and judged not to be science.

Could I AGAIN point out that Creation Scientists believe that the teaching of Creation Science should NOT be forced upon schools - it is something that parents may wish their children to be taught - and if so, it will be available to them.

As for Spontaneous Evolution, it is such an obvious 'load of baloney' that even a seven year old could see through it.
If schools wish to have it on their curriculum, I say it is a free country ... and a very important aspect of TRUE freedom is the freedom to be WRONG ... and to suffer any consequences!!!!:pac::):D

...even God agrees that we should have the freedom to be WRONG ... and suffer the consequences ... and THAT is WHY somebody who makes a deliberate decision to NOT be Saved, will have their decision respected ... and they will go to eternal perdition ... if they don't change their mind before they die!!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Robin 'pops up' to ask a question, gets an answer that demolishes his hypothesis and he 'disappears' only to 'reappear' some days/weeks later with another 'potshot' at the Bible and/or Creationists ... and the cycle repeats itself!!!


Quote:robindch
You'll recall from this post, that I was asking wolfsbane a question. I don't really recall asking you a serious or even non-rhetorical question for a long time, quite possibly in years.You've only noticed this now? :rolleyes:

....I agree that you have recently confined yourself to taking 'potshots' at me from the sidelines and then 'running away' ... just like in the post linked to by you above!!!

...I can understand why you don't want to 'lock horns' with me, because of the 'roasting' that you have received during previous exchanges.:eek:

...I know that it can be very stressful when you are repeatedly shown the complete inadequacy of Spontaneous Evolution to 'pass muster' on any count...but this isn't merely a debating 'game' .... your very soul is 'on the line' here, Robin.

...the Holy Spirit is telling me that you need to urgently reassess your life ... you could be destined for greatness as a beloved Son of God ... a God who has great plans for YOU ... so I beg you to turn to Jesus Christ ... it is still not too late...and don't let anybody tell you that it is too late!!!!

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't see any other possible (honest) interpretation of this passage.

Well yes, I think that is the point.

This is basically astrology and works on the same principle. You have a vague idea of what should happen that is matched with a specific event. You then say it matches because that is the only match you can think of because you already have the narrative that it must match.

So you take something like he will prolong his days and say that the only thing you can think that could possibly refer to is a resurrection. And then you say that this prophecy predicts a resurrection. Of course it doesn't say the Messiah will be resurrected. That is only a conclusion you reach, and as such cannot be debated. It is your opinion, and is free from objective assessment and criticism.

You say to me tell me something else it could be. So if I say anything all you have to do is say "Umm, I'm not convinced by that ..." and reject it. And you are back at the start ignoring that you have not shown that this passage refers to resurrection at all, that is just your assumption. It is sell regulating. You can't be wrong and as such everything you want to appear correct does appear correct because you can't test it independently to your own opinion.

It is a very clever psychological trick that allows people like astrologists to make an awful lot of money.

And come to think of it it is a lot like Creationism when a Creationist say they are not convinced by evolution ...

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

Just something I have noticed about this thread.

Robin 'pops up' to ask a question, gets an answer that demolishes his hypothesis and he 'disappears' only to 'reappear' some days/weeks later with another 'potshot' at the Bible and/or Creationists ... and the cycle repeats itself!!!

But this is not all that happens ... my answer to Robin is usually then challenged by some OTHER evolutionist(s) on the Thread ... who also eventually succumb to the cold logic of Creation Science!!!

....it seems that Robin has a number of (equally hapless) 'little helpers' ... while I stand alone ... with only Jesus Christ and Wolfsbane to help me!!!!:pac::):D

....but this is more than adequate ... because Jesus did promise that "where two or more are gathered in my name there will I also be."

... and with God on our side who can come against us?:pac::):D

...may the infinite peace and love of Jesus Christ be with you all.

Self praise is no praise.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well firstly I would point out that that is not evolution, that is called abiogenesis and is not a part of the theory of evolution. I would also point out that it was largely achieved in a lab a few months ago:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html

... it was nothing of the sort!!!

...all that was achieved in this lab experiment (using an enormous input of Human Intelligence ... and inteligently designed equipment) was a form of RNA ...DNA's simpler cousin....using pre-existing 'building blocks'!!!
...in other words one potential information 'carrier' was produced with an inordinate input of intelligence ... but not even one bit of information was spontaneously produced!!!:D
...it's the equivalent of a computer programmer 'jumping up and down' about producing a length of copper wire!!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Genetic information is just a particular combination of chemicals in a particular order and remember that it didn't have to start out with the millions of genes we have, it could have been much simpler at the start. In a universe that's 14 billion years old and which contains trillions of planets it's actually quite likely that these chemicals would combine in the right order at some stage, it just took 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion attempts. Of course if you decide that the world is 10,000 years old, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.......

Genetic Information is indeed "a particular combination of chemicals in a particular order" ... just like the letters on this page are "a particular combination of letters in a particular order"...and that is precisely the PROBLEM for spontaneous systems ... the 'useful' combinatorial space is so tiny (often only one way) and 'useless' combinatorial space is so vast (greater than all of the electrons in the Known Universe for a simple 100 chain Amino Acid Protein ... or a specific 20 word paragraph) ... that it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE to construct either the specific Protein or the specific paragraph spontaneously ... even if every electron in the trillions of stars and planets Universe as well as trillions of years were available to you!!!!
..such is the importance of INTELLIGENCE in all of this, that I have just used my intelligent mind to construct a specific sentence of much greater than 20 words in the past 5 minutes ... a feat that would defeat the entire universe even if it could use every electron to churn out a different combination of 100 letters every micro-second for a trillion years!!!:D

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you do believe in evolution then?


So just to be clear here, you agree that the viruses change over time and that our immune systems have to generate new antibodies to cope with these new strains of the viruses, which the vaccines allow us to do?

I feel it incumbent upon me to point out that if you believe that the viruses change over time then you actually believe in evolution, you just disagree on what causes them to change.

...I PRIMARILY disagree on the ultimate source of the information that ALLOWS them to change.:D:)

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

Self praise is no praise.

....where did I praise myself????

...I gave all of the credit to Jesus Christ ... and Wolfsbane ... and Creation Science!!!:pac::):D

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

"The great Dawkins said we cannot tolerate those who don't use reason. They go around chopping down trees for tables when they have perfectly good tummies to eat on! How reasonable is it to eat off wood instead of your tummy?!" - Head Otter.

...have you tried eating off your tummy recently????

...what is the meaning of your sig??

...are you saying that the 'great Dawkins' (whoever s/he is) really believes, that we should turn into a race of 'muck savages' eating food off our navels rather than behaving as civilised Human Beings and eating our food in a reasonably efficient and hygenic manner off a clean plate on a clean table???:pac::):D

...I greatly fear that if 'Head Otter' has his/her way ... and intolerance arises against those who don't use reason ... that s/he may well be one of the first victims of such intolerance!!!:eek::D

....I think it is known as 'being hoist on one's own petard'!!!!:D:eek:

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

My sig doesnt mean anything, its just supposed to be funny.

...just like Spontaneous Evolution doesn't mean anything and can be funny ... I guess!!!:pac::):D

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

...just like Spontaneous Evolution doesn't mean anything and can be funny ... I guess!!!:pac::):D

sorry, i deleted my post, but you had already seen it, I shall encourage you no longer.

Morbert

J C, most what you have said over the last few pages is wrong. Evolution can and does account for information carried by DNA. In your posts, you seem to reference a concept of information similar to Dembski's and Gitt's. Such concepts are irrelevant to this discussion.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

Could I AGAIN point out that Creation Scientists believe that the teaching of Creation Science should NOT be forced upon schools - it is something that parents may wish their children to be taught - and if so, it will be available to them.

Firstly the term creation scientists is an oxymoron. Secondly if you really think it's science you should be encouraging its teaching in schools. And finally I think professor Behe would disagree with the above statement

J C wrote: »

As for Spontaneous Evolution, it is such an obvious 'load of baloney' that even a seven year old could see through it.

That depends on what you mean by spontaneous evolution. If you mean abiogenesis, that's not evolution and you should not confuse the two. If you mean random genetic mutations in DNA that result in physical changes in the life form, that's been proven to the same extent as gravity. But while we're on the subject of baloney, the idea that God beamed us down as we are now.......

J C wrote: »

... it was nothing of the sort!!!

...all that was achieved in this lab experiment (using an enormous input of Human Intelligence ... and inteligently designed equipment) was a form of RNA ...DNA's simpler cousin....using pre-existing 'building blocks'!!!
...in other words one potential information 'carrier' was produced with an inordinate input of intelligence ... but not even one bit of information was spontaneously produced!!!:D
...it's the equivalent of a computer programmer 'jumping up and down' about producing a length of copper wire!!!!

The whole point of the experiment was that it reproduced the conditions of the time. They had to coax the experiment along because if they were to wait for it to happen on its own it could take a billion years but what it proved was that it could have happened. Just because they had to artificially reproduce the circumstances does not mean those circumstances could never have arisen on their own. They just didn't have a billion years to wait

What you're suggesting is like saying that if someone pushes a load of sand together and creates a sand dune and that this sand dune was created using intelligent design, that it's impossible to create any sand dunes without intelligence. It's nonsense

J C wrote: »

Genetic Information is indeed "a particular combination of chemicals in a particular order" ... just like the letters on this page are "a particular combination of letters in a particular order"...and that is precisely the PROBLEM for spontaneous systems ... the 'useful' combinatorial space is so tiny (often only one way) and 'useless' combinatorial space is so vast (greater than all of the electrons in the Known Universe for a simple 100 chain Amino Acid Protein ... or a specific 20 word paragraph) ... that it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE to construct either the specific Protein or the specific paragraph spontaneously

Now you see this is a common misconception among christians. Statistically impossible is a much misused term. Say something has a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1 quintillion) chance of happening, extremely unlikely I'm sure you'll agree, you might say statistically impossible. But now imagine (some rough figures here) a universe that contains 1,000,000,000,000 (1 trillion) planets, which is probably drastically underestimated btw, and they all have chemicals swirling around and that these planets have existed for 14,000,000,000 (14 billion) years. Now imagine that the chemicals come close to being in the right order 10 times a year somewhere on each planet. That means that since the beginning of the universe life has had 140,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (140 sextillion) chances to come into existence. Suddenly 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 doesn't seem that unlikely anymore

Of course if those scientists who made RNA were going to allow it to happen on its own it could take another 14 billion years but that does not mean that it's impossible to do without intelligence guiding it. In a universe that is so vast and that has existed for so long, anything that is physically possible, no matter how unlikely it may seem, actually becomes almost inevitable

To give an analogy, if I stood 30 feet from a dart board with a blind fold on, you could argue it would be impossible to hit the board on my first go. But if I was allowed throw it 140,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times, only an idiot would bet against me. I would inevitably hit the board at least once and once is all it takes

This idea is commonly used in nature, for example in plant pollination (wind and water pollination or anemophily). Plants shoot out pollen and often fertilise plants miles away. At first glance it seems impossible, that a single piece of pollen could hit the target of a petal of a flower ten miles away but then you remember that the plant shoots out millions of bits of pollen, 99.999% of which go nowhere but that one lucky bit hits the target. These flowers survive by making an extremely unlikely event very likely through millions of attempts

J C

Morbert wrote: »

J C, most what you have said over the last few pages is wrong. Evolution can and does account for information carried by DNA. In your posts, you seem to reference a concept of information similar to Dembski's and Gitt's. Such concepts are irrelevant to this discussion.

Evolution accounts for the manipulation of pre-existing information ... it doesn't account for the ultimate origin of the information!!!:pac::):D

I once was just like you, Morbert... a fervent believer in Spontaneous Evolution...now I just blush with embarassment every time I think about it!!!!:pac::):D

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, I think that is the point.

This is basically astrology and works on the same principle. You have a vague idea of what should happen that is matched with a specific event. You then say it matches because that is the only match you can think of because you already have the narrative that it must match.

So you take something like he will prolong his days and say that the only thing you can think that could possibly refer to is a resurrection. And then you say that this prophecy predicts a resurrection. Of course it doesn't say the Messiah will be resurrected. That is only a conclusion you reach, and as such cannot be debated. It is your opinion, and is free from objective assessment and criticism.

You say to me tell me something else it could be. So if I say anything all you have to do is say "Umm, I'm not convinced by that ..." and reject it. And you are back at the start ignoring that you have not shown that this passage refers to resurrection at all, that is just your assumption. It is sell regulating. You can't be wrong and as such everything you want to appear correct does appear correct because you can't test it independently to your own opinion.

It is a very clever psychological trick that allows people like astrologists to make an awful lot of money.

And come to think of it it is a lot like Creationism when a Creationist say they are not convinced by evolution ...

So prove me wrong by giving me (and the others here) an alternative explanation. Remember how it goes - he is executed, then this happens:

He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong.

I think most impartial observers will agree it must mean a resurrection - even if they dismiss it all as mythology. They and I await your insight.