The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

33% God wrote: »

A nice sentence quote is only useful when it represents the wider context, your's do not in any way do that. They are in fact deliberately taken to distort the message.
I could take individual quotes from the bible and make it out to be a horrible book, but when taken in context those quotes would not mean nearly the same thing.

...there are many horrific things (from a Human point of view) recorded in the Bible and somebody could distort the real meaning of some verses by inappropriate truncation, abridgement, combination or emphasis. However, it will be pretty obvious where this occurs, once it is pointed out.:)

33% God

J C wrote: »

..like I have said, every quote has some limitations ... even if I quoted the entire book somebody could still argue that a biopic of the author would be needed to provide a full context for the book. There is no end to such 'contextual' arguments.

....the quotes are legitimate ... and if my comments are incorrect please point out any errors!!!:)

You love building up strawmen. The point is that if you take a quote out of context that is wrong. It would be difficult to take a book out of context, but if one book only made sense when placed in the context of other books (as some books of the bible do) then that would be taking it out of context and would also be wrong. You are extending your logic to make it seem as if context is subjective, it is not.

J C wrote: »

...there are many horrific things (from a Human point of view) recorded in the Bible and somebody could distort the real meaning of some verses by inappropriate truncation, abridgement, combination or emphasis. However, it will be pretty obvious where this occurs, once it is pointed out.

Likewise. It's not like you're fooling anyone

monosharp

J C wrote: »

....the quotes are legitimate ... and if my comments are incorrect please point out any errors!!!:)

You know perfectly well that your quotes are complete rubbish and yet you continue to use them.

Your quote from Stephen Jay Gould is despicably used out of context and anyone with a sense of honour would be ashamed to claim such rubbish as that from a man who is no longer here to defend himself.

Your disrespecting the dead trying to push forward your own petty agenda.

The man himself had to come out before his death to try and set the record straight because of people misquoting him and still you use it.

Absolutely pathetic JC.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

..like I have said, every quote has some limitations ... even if I quoted the entire book somebody could still argue that a biopic of the author would be needed to provide a full context for the book. There is no end to such 'contextual' arguments.

....the quotes are legitimate ... and if my comments are incorrect please point out any errors!!!:)

I love it:

JC: the quotes are legitimate ... and if my comments are incorrect please point out any errors!!!


Several people: Here are the exact points where you have made all of your errors:


JC: the quotes are legitimate ... and if my comments are incorrect please point out any errors!!!


Cosmic

pts

Malty_T wrote: »

JC,

It is both dishonest and disrespectful to quote out of context, end of!
You can take a two word or three word quote as long as it clearly represents the viewpoint and argument being made by the person whom you are quoting. Misrepresentation of another's view is perhaps the lowest form of debating.:(

It is also something that a proper scientist wouldn't do. Even the most junior researcher knows how quotations and citations should be used. JC claims to be a scientist (so he should know how quotes should be used) which would imply that he continuously displays deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

You said you read Dawkin's book, can you act like a real scientist and point out what you don't agree with, and why.

Sam Vimes

33% God wrote: »

Likewise. It's not like you're fooling anyone

It's true. People really should just stop responding to this thread because it's not possible to win a debate against someone who deliberately misrepresents his opponents. Everyone reading this thread knows that J C doesn't have a leg to stand on, including J C himself, so there's really no point in debating any further. The debate has been won and now we're just seeing how far he will delve into the ridiculous and the disingenuous to avoid conceding his position. He's never going to give up his position because as long as he can wait a few days until everyone's forgotten the question he avoided he'll never have to

The Mad Hatter

33% God wrote: »

It's not like you're fooling anyone

Wolfsbane...

Actually, speaking of whom, weren't we talking about entropy (before J C sadly successfully managed to change the subject again)?

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU

Saw this and thought of this thread.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

You equate the inability to cross-breed with a change of organism.

A spider that cannot breed with another type of spider is still a spider. The genetic change did not make it a non-spider. Your assumption that it could go on to become the master-race of the universe is part of your ideology, not science.

Creationists have no trouble with speciation - indeed, they insist on it:
Speedy species surprise
http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise

Speciation is evolution. End of thread.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Speciation is evolution. End of thread.

Speciation is creationism. End of thread?

Really, FD, one can't make exclusive claims on things both sides hold.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Wolfsbane...

Actually, speaking of whom, weren't we talking about entropy (before J C sadly successfully managed to change the subject again)?

Yes, we were.

Got to the stage where evolutionists said entropy doesn't apply to billions of years of increasing complexity, only to the heat loss of the chemical processes.

Or had we moved beyond that?

wolfsbane

33% God wrote: »

Ya, because that's the definition of a species.


...What? Where did I mention anything about master race. You're constructing strawmen here and it really isn't doing your argument any good.
I am simply saying that we have observed one species evolving from another. That is all. That is all I have ever claimed. I am speaking here about the fact of evolution, not the theory of evolution by natural selection.

But creationists do not deny speciation - in fact, we insist on it. We deny that flies can become anything other than flies, spiders anything other than spiders, etc.

You did not mention the possibility of spiders evolving into the masters of the universe - but that is part of the theory of evolution. That is how man is supposed to have gotten where he is today.

The 'fact' of evolution you refer to is really only the fact of speciation. Flies varying; spiders varying - none of them changing into anything but flies and spiders.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

They can change into new species, in fact Creationist requires this to happen on a pretty ridiculous time scale, with new species appearing every few months after the landing of the Ark. We are talking lions mutating into house cats within a few generations (for some strange unexplained reason all this rapid evolution has stopped)

What they can't do is change into a new "kind"

What is a "kind" you say? Well it works like this, you go down to the barn yard and you say "That is a duck, that is a horse, that is a cat, and that is a dog"

Well done, you have now got as far as any Creationist ever has at actually defining "kinds".

So a "horse" may evolve into many different species of "horse" (often within only a few years) but it can never evolve into something other than a "horse"

See, simple.

A "fly" (no no, don't try and classify that any further, yes there are thousands of species of flies) can never evolve into something other than "a fly", because "a fly" is a "kind", and the Bible says that Noah put 2 of every "kind" of animal on the Ark.

Now, if you are thinking to yourself that all that is the dumbest thing you have ever heard you probably have a long career ahead of you in biology or medicine.

If on the other hand all that actually seemed to make sense to you I suggest you write to the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis straight away as they will probably give you a job :P

Hmm. The evolutionist looks at life and sees...? Oh, Yes...self-replicating molecules grouped in various ways. No essential difference between man and the dog-dirt on the bottom of his shoe.

The creationist, in his simplicity, sees cats and dogs, flies and spiders, monkeys and men. Each related to some others; none related to all. Created by God for a purpose, each with its place and dignity.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. The evolutionist looks at life and sees...? Oh, Yes...self-replicating molecules grouped in various ways. No essential difference between man and the dog-dirt on the bottom of his shoe.

The creationist, in his simplicity, sees cats and dogs, flies and spiders, monkeys and men. Each related to some others; none related to all. Created by God for a purpose, each with its place and dignity.

Although I disagree with your perspective from the evolutionist POV - Evolution is a beautifully elegant process.

My point here is simply that just because something is ugly or beautiful doesn't mean it's true.

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. The evolutionist looks at life and sees...? Oh, Yes...self-replicating molecules grouped in various ways. No essential difference between man and the dog-dirt on the bottom of his shoe.

The creationist, in his simplicity, sees cats and dogs, flies and spiders, monkeys and men. Each related to some others; none related to all. Created by God for a purpose, each with its place and dignity.

...behold I lay before you life and death says the Lord ...
....choose LIFE

...behold Evolution lays before no essential difference between man and the dog-dirt on the bottom of his shoe...
...and Creation lays before you cats and dogs, flies and spiders, monkeys and men. Each related to some others; none related to all. Created by God for a purpose, each with its place and dignity...
...Choose Creationism!!!:D:)

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't understand the difference between the two. An animal is completely defined by its DNA so if you acknowledge that enough of it can change to create a variant of a species, why can't enough change to change to a new species? That's like saying that on a dice it's only possible to get a 3 or a 4 and it's impossible to get 1, 2, 5 or 6. What's the difference?

Good point. Logically, extrapolation seems a possibility. The question is, is there a law that limits such change? Creationists say there is, one set by God in initial creation, and we have never seen that violated.

We observe many biological processes and see there are limitations imposed on them - the physical/chemical constraints that limit size, for example. Because a lung can grow from the tiniest thing in the womb to the massive size required to sustain the adult, that does not mean it can grow indefinitely.

Or in ability: I can run at 10mph; perhaps I can train so that I can run at 20mph. But does that mean I can some day run at 100mph, or 1000mph? I imagine there are limits set by chemistry and physics.

So too with genetics.

J C

33% God wrote: »

My other 67% is human, but still awesome.

...OK so you're an Evolutionist ... and you think you're God!!!!:D:)

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It's bull.

The quote in your sig does not state that Dawkins is referring only to his own books - it reads as though he's talking about all books on evolution, and that he is arrogantly taking it upon himself to set out the evidence for evolution where no-one else has. Obviously that is not true. That is why the preceding paragraph, not the following one, is necessary for context.

Here it is:

"The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype offered an unfamiliar vision of the familiar theory of natural selection, but they didn't discuss the evidence for evolution itself. My next three books, in their different ways, sought to identify, and dissolve, the main barriers to understanding. These books, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden and (my favourite of the three) Climbing Mount Improbable, answered questions like, 'what is the use of half an eye?' 'What is the use of half a wing?' 'How can natural selection work, given that most mutations have negative effects?' Once again, however, these three books, although they cleared away stumbling blocks, did not present the actual evidence that evolution is a fact. My largest book, The Ancestor's Tale, laid out the full course of the history of life, as a sort of ancestor-seeking Chaucerian pilgrimage going backwards in time, but it again assumed that evolution is true.
"Looking back on these books, I realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and this was a serious gap that I needed to close."

So the sentence is saying that Prof Dawkins believes that nowhere in any of his previous books has he explicitly set out the evidence for Evolution and indeed he appears to indicate that other evolutionists believe the same to be true about their own writings and the need to provide explicit evidence for evolution - because in the next sentence he says that "the same thoughts occurred to others"!!!!

He then goes on to conclude that he needed to close this gap - with the implication that he intended to provide explicit evidence for evolution in what follows in the rest of the book.
Again, my quote doesn't in any way take away from this conclusion.

So where is there any 'misrepresentation' by me in this quote ?
The quote says that Prof Dawkins believes that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out in any of Prof Dawkins previous books - and that is what he seems to be actually saying when you read this sentence within the entire Preface - or on it's own in my sig!!!


The importance of the quote is obvious - because it is a frank admission by one of the leading proponents of Darwinian Evolution that he hasn't explicitly set out the evidence for evolution in any of his previous books about evolution!!!

This is a very important admission from Prof Dawkins ... as I am arguing that there is no explicit evidence for evolution ... and this admission from a leading evolutionist, who has written extensively on the subject, is certainly favouring my case!!!

It also raises the question of how many books must Prof Dawkins write before he actually gets around to 'heart of the matter' by giving us the explicit evidence for evolution ... which in turn, leads to the reasonable hypothesis that the reason he didn't give us this evidence already is because it doesn't exist!!!
All of these questions (which flow from this quote) may be very uncomfortable for Evolutionists ... as eximplified by your emotional reactions including disblief that my quote really is a true refection of what Prof Dawkins actually said!!!!

Unfortunately for the 'Evolutonist Cause' it is exactly (in both the letter and the meaning) what he said....
....and your emotional outbursts don't in any way invalidate the legitimacy or the truthfulness of the quote - which is indeed true to the sentiments expressed by Prof Dawkins.

This then leads us on to the question of whether Prof Dawkins did actually 'fill the gap' and did provided explicit evidence for evolution in the book?
I have read it and I don't believe he did - but I am open to correction on this belief - if anybody can provide the evidence!!!!

... so rather than nit-picking and arguing over semantics ... please point out WHERE Prof Dawkins ACTUALLY provided EXPLICIT evidence for Evolution in his latest book!!!

stevejazzx

We've got trees older than 5,000 years. Fact, proven. end of. When did all these bloody species evolve? In the last 5,000 -10,000 years? There are pictures of cats, birds going back longer than what you people claim is the total age of the earth! There are civilizations going back to 12,000 B.C! Every geologist agrees excepts some isolated nuts who refuse to accept that the data that many different types of aging tests correlate. They do, it's a blooming factoid. I can't post here anymore, evolution as understood at the moment is as much as a 'fact' as gravity is. Don't believe in gravity? Go throw yourself off a building. Don't believe in evolution? Go throw yourself off a building...:)
You're like the church in the time of Galileo - clinging in Christian hope to the last iotas of belief that might save your faith. If the world is really young then maybe we have a chance of resolving all this, maybe there's a chance we have not wasted our entire lives.
Think about it, the wealth of knowledge that disagrees with you. The people who build machines and satellites that monitor the earth from space. The mathematicians that can tell you the calculations of quantum computing, the geologists that prove specimens are millions of years old, the scientists that peer through microscopes at organisms we could have never imagined existed. We're smashing atoms into one another..we're slowly building up the entire puzzle, we know science is right because things work..planes fly, computers compute! You put your life in the hands of science all the time, don't dismiss it as rubbish just because you have a pre-ordained belief that is put out by it's findings. Creationism is a religious based idea. Irreducible complexity has been shown as pretty much the rubbish theory it was. There is no sicence in creationism there is only belief..unlike science you have no working model of anything except possibly delusion.

That's me done with this thread. A great deal of fun was had in debating but ultimately the old adage is true: you can't reason peolpe out of beliefs they didn't reason themselves into to begin with.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Good point. Logically, extrapolation seems a possibility. The question is, is there a law that limits such change? Creationists say there is, one set by God in initial creation, and we have never seen that violated.

We observe many biological processes and see there are limitations imposed on them - the physical/chemical constraints that limit size, for example. Because a lung can grow from the tiniest thing in the womb to the massive size required to sustain the adult, that does not mean it can grow indefinitely.

Or in ability: I can run at 10mph; perhaps I can train so that I can run at 20mph. But does that mean I can some day run at 100mph, or 1000mph? I imagine there are limits set by chemistry and physics.

So too with genetics.

What you are getting into here is the scaling law hypothesis. I'm going be perfectly honest with you, I don't fully understand it but from what I do understand of it here's my crude explanation:

Everything in nature seems to follow power laws of a similar sort. If you know these power laws then you can in theory work out the size of any quantity for any order of magnitude. Generally speaking, the relationships are of exponential form which supports the idea of gradual evolution from one scale to the next. So the hypothesis can also explain how the requirements for a creature's food/energy needs would scale as it grows in size.
As of yet, it is just a hypothesis however it explains a great deal from such a simplistic model, thus far it seems to be holding up to experiment.
Again Wolfy I don't fully understand it and a quick google didn't really help - you have delved deep into a relatively young area of science.

J C

stevejazzx wrote: »

We've got trees older than 5,000 years. Fact, proven. end of. When did all these bloody species evolve? In the last 5,000 -10,000 years? There are pictures of cats, birds going back longer than what you people claim is the total age of the earth! There are civilizations going back to 12,000 B.C! Every geologist agrees excepts some isolated nuts who refuse to accept that the data that many different types of aging tests correlate. They do, it's a blooming factoid. I can't post here anymore, evolution as understood at the moment is as much as a 'fact' as gravity is. Don't believe in gravity? Go throw yourself off a building. Don't believe in evolution? Go throw yourself off a building...:)
You're like the church in the time of Galileo - clinging in Christian hope to the last iotas of belief that might save your faith. If the world is really young then maybe we have a chance of resolving all this, maybe there's a chance we have not wasted our entire lives.
Think about it, the wealth of knowledge that disagrees with you. The people who build machines and satellites that monitor the earth from space. The mathematicians that can tell you the calculations of quantum computing, the geologists that prove specimens are millions of years old, the scientists that peer through microscopes at organisms we could have never imagined existed. We're smashing atoms into one another..we're slowly building up the entire puzzle, we know science is right because things work..planes fly, computers compute! You put your life in the hands of science all the time, don't dismiss it as rubbish just because you have a pre-ordained belief that is put out by it's findings. .

...stick with the knitting!!
...and show us where Prof Dawkins has provided explicit evidence for 'Molecules to Man' Evolution in his new book!!!

stevejazzx wrote: »

That's me done with this thread. A great deal of fun was had in debating but ultimately the old adage is true: you can't reason people out of beliefs they didn't reason themselves into to begin with

..very true of Evolution and Evolutionism actually!!!

...do bear in mind that I WAS and Evolutionist and it took me 10 years to reason myself into Creation Science, such were the levels of denial that I was suffering from!!!

...I feel your pain!!!:D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...do bear in mind that I WAS and Evolutionist and it took me 10 years to reason myself into Creation Science, such were the levels of denial that I was suffering from!!!

...I feel your pain!!!:D

JC you thought you were an evolutionist but, really, you never were because you, quite simply, have shown no recognition of what evolution actually means.

No pain btw, Evolution rocks!

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

But creationists do not deny speciation

Speciation = evolution.

End of thread.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. The evolutionist looks at life and sees...? Oh, Yes...self-replicating molecules grouped in various ways. No essential difference between man and the dog-dirt on the bottom of his shoe.

The creationist, in his simplicity, sees cats and dogs, flies and spiders, monkeys and men. Each related to some others; none related to all. Created by God for a purpose, each with its place and dignity.

Meh what can you do, most Creationists are idiots who know nothing about biology. Not you and JC of course ...

J C

robindch wrote: »

Speciation = evolution.

End of thread.

Speciation is a direct phenomenon of Creation - it is 'going forth and mutiplying'!!!
...end of beginning .... of thread!!!

...did you come up with any explicit evidence for Evolution?

Soul Winner

No, Jesus is LORD - End of thread

monosharp

JC are you going to answer me or not ?

You are currently misusing a quote from a dead man which is taken 100% out of context for your own purposes.

I don't expect you to change it, I want an answer to the question have you got any shame ?

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...do bear in mind that I WAS and Evolutionist and it took me 10 years to reason myself into Creation Science, such were the levels of denial that I was suffering from!!!

...I feel your pain!!!:D

Absolute 100% lies. You don't know the most basic thing about evolution.

For one simple fact you seem to think Evolution and Abiogenesis are the same thing. So its very clear you know nothing about either.

Only a dishonest fundamentalist fool who insults both the living and the dead with quote mined rubbish would act this way.

Is that you JC ?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Good point. Logically, extrapolation seems a possibility. The question is, is there a law that limits such change? Creationists say there is, one set by God in initial creation, and we have never seen that violated.

Yes but you have never observed this limit, and neither have biologists

Biologists work on the data available to them. Given that they have never seen this limit why assume it is there just because a religion says it is

What you have basically just admitted is that you accept everything in evolutionary theory (since you need everything in evolutionary theory to get from the Ark to today) but believe that there is an invisible barrier that will stop species evolving in a particular way, a barrier that no one has defined or observed

monosharp

J C wrote: »

... so rather than nit-picking and arguing over semantics ... please point out WHERE Prof Dawkins ACTUALLY provided EXPLICIT evidence for Evolution in his latest book!!!

Please JC.

Be so kind as to explain what possible incentive anyone here has for pointing out anything to you anymore ?

When something is pointed out to you, you have possibly 3 different responses.

1. Completely ignore it and just continue on regardless.
2. Disappear for a few days after an awkward question, then come back and proceed with number 1.
3. Claim that the point made, which is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community is 'wrong' without any counter-evidence and then proceed with number 1.

For one simple example, your quote from Stephen Jay Gould.

You know as well as everyone else here that your quote is completely taken out of context and the meaning you have applied to it and the meaning people take from it without its context is completely false.

The man himself had to come out and make a statement about this before his death.

You know its quote mined rubbish just as well as I know my signature is quote mined rubbish from you, its taken out of context and its not what you meant.

Why do you continue to use it ?