Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
BrianCalgary wrote:Here is an interesting article on the age of the Earth. Comments?
http://www.tothesource.org/5_16_2006/5_16_2006.htm
Well, first off, I'd love to see that survey! Did they have a checkbox marked "Beginning? There was no beginning. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story, it helps kids go to bed at night, but we sophisticates know better."? And what did the other checkboxes say?
Second, "they now target the Bible’s claim that the universe was created in six 24-hours days as pure silliness" - really? Please, science does no such thing! Does the author really think the entire purpose of science is to attack bits of the Bible? What a waste of time that would be.
Third, if you pick numbers out of a hat, and then fudge them a bit, you can get almost any answer. This one is right within a trillion years or so. Unfortunately, of course, the ratio used in the article is nonsense, since the early inflationary period shown in the diagram (!) accounts for most of the expansion in any case.
Overall, quite a sad attempt to "measure" the Universe with a six inch ruler. I refer you to Maxwell's quote above.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:No, because God has the ability to create the stars with their light shining in the earth's night sky at the moment of creation. He has no need to wait the 3 billion years in order for it to arrive.
But he didn't create the stars. Assyrian points out the stars, if the were real, would have burned out thousands, millions if not billions of years ago.
So, 6,000 years ago, God would have created light tavelling throught emptiness of space for fake stars that never actually existed in the first place. Why?
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense now does it?
The most amazing thing I don't get about Creationists, especially young Earth creationsists, is that for their beliefs to be right the universe must be a seriously f**ked up place, with God having fake a HUGE amount of evidence and data to make it look like the Earth and Universe is actually a lot older than it actually is. Faking the light from stars that couldn't exist is just one of a long list of nut case things God must have done. None of it makes any sense, unless you believe God is either a nut case or the biggest practical joker of all time.
To me it always reminds me of the story of the man and the flood.
Before the flood a police man calls to the house and says to the man that a flood is on its way, he needs to leave. But the man says "No, I believe in Jesus almighty, God will not let me drown". The flood comes and the man goes to his roof. A small boat comes along and the person says "Hey hop down, I will save you!". But the man says "No thank you, I have faith in God. Jesus will not let me drown". The boat goes away, and the house sinks a deeper into the waters. Finally a rescue helicopter hovers over the roof and a coast guard yells "Quickly, we will lower the rope and you grab on". But the man again says "No, I know God will protect me from the waters. I have faith in him". As the helicopter flies away the house sinks into the water and the man is washed away and drowns. At the gates of heaven the man, with an angry puzzlement demands God explain why he let him drown. "I had faith in you oh Lord, have I not proved my love for you". And God looks back at him with an equally puzzled look. "What are you talking about? I sent you a police man, a boat and a freaking helicopter! What more do you want!"
My version of this is the Creationists get to heaven and come face to face with God. One of them plucks up the courage to ask God what they have all wondered. "Oh lord, why have you never revealed the true nature of the universe to us and others on Earth". And God looks back at him with a puzzled look on his face. "What are you talking about? I sent you Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein and Hawkins! What more do you want!"
(feel free to insert scientists who people believe were more important than those I picked)0 -
J C wrote:Wicknight
So it doesn't really matter if you lead a good life, if you are a good person, you just need to be "saved" on your death bed?
Firstly, being a ‘good’ person will not of itself save you. You must repent of your sins and believe on Jesus Christ to be saved.
Secondly, the strategy that you propose is both risky and unwise. It is risky because you might not have a ‘death bed’ upon which to repent and be saved (for example, you might be killed instantly some day). It is unwise because you are denying yourself the benefit of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ 'here and now' rather than in the future. This is one ‘instant gratification’ that you should 'go for' immediately – rather than waiting.
I'd missed this one - so being saved now rather than on your deathbed is....."eternal life insurance"?
apologetically,
Scofflaw0 -
Wicknight wrote:
So, 6,000 years ago, God would have created light tavelling throught emptiness of space for fake stars that never actually existed in the first place. Why?
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense now does it?
First of all, no matter how you look at it we are seeing the light of stars that at one point never existed. There is nothing to prevent God from creating a star and immediately having it's' light visible millions of light years away. I getthe feeling wicknight that you are trying to limit God and His abilities to that of physical laws?
God operates ouside of those physical laws. If He wanted to create it that way He can. The reason is possibly that it was necessary in order to have everything run smoothly and survive. Physical laws were created. God could have created the stars that we see and had their light starting at source and then not arrive here for millions of years, but that would mean that we still wouldn't be able to see them.
What a great gift He has given us.
BTW, I love that story. If it ends up that way, I'll just chuckle and eat a little crow.:) But, I will be in Heaven, where will you be?0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:First of all, no matter how you look at it we are seeing the light of stars that at one point never existed. There is nothing to prevent God from creating a star and immediately having it's' light visible millions of light years away. I getthe feeling wicknight that you are trying to limit God and His abilities to that of physical laws?
God operates ouside of those physical laws. If He wanted to create it that way He can. The reason is possibly that it was necessary in order to have everything run smoothly and survive. Physical laws were created. God could have created the stars that we see and had their light starting at source and then not arrive here for millions of years, but that would mean that we still wouldn't be able to see them.
Mmm. This is why science has "materialist assumptions". You can't use "if He wanted to create it that way He can" to try and understand the Universe through science, because there's no reason it should be any particular way other than God's decision. God's decisions cannot be apprehended through science, but only through the Bible (sic).
If he creates a star and "immediately has its light visible millions of light years away" then we know nothing, and cannot know more. While I appreciate your sincerity in the matter from a religious perspective, can you see how it makes science impossible?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw wrote:Mmm. This is why science has "materialist assumptions". You can't use "if He wanted to create it that way He can" to try and understand the Universe through science, because there's no reason it should be any particular way other than God's decision. God's decisions cannot be apprehended through science, but only through the Bible (sic).
If he creates a star and "immediately has its light visible millions of light years away" then we know nothing, and cannot know more. While I appreciate your sincerity in the matter from a religious perspective, can you see how it makes science impossible?
cordially,
Scofflaw
Absolutely, I see where science has the difficulty.
Can you see where Christians have the difficulty in science not entertaining this as a possibility?
I love science and what it tells me about how things work. I am amazed and thouroughly impressed that what we are using to discuss things actually works. I can not even begin to comprehend the code that is written to allow us to do what we do. Yet it does work.
My interest however boils down to people souls. I have a genuine love for people and the thought that there could be kids on my teams or athletes on the pro team that I chaplained that I will not get to play soccer with in Heaven grieves me. And when they can sit back and with sincerity claim that science has proven there is no God, then I have a problem. I know the learned bunch on this board have the ability to distinguish between the two, most people can't.
The average person on the street is so concerned with their own existence and economic survival that it prevents them from delving into spiritual matters and when it is has been taught to them through their school books and through TV that everything 'evolved' and that the universe is a chance reality, and that there is no room for God, I get very sad. Does that make sense to you as well?0 -
Scofflaw wrote:Karma, both good and bad, entangles you with the world, and reinforces the ego. All karma therefore stands in the way of Nirvana, and so is "bad". Superficially, you can aim for karmic balance, but actually one should aim for karmic nullity. Leastways, that's my understanding of it, but I'd be happy to be corrected (largely why I've stuck my oar in).
Afraid I would have to disagree somewhat with that.
In Buddhism, Karma is one element in a chain of cause and effect. All actions are understood to create dormant potentials in the mind which will sprout into appropriate results when they meet with the right conditions. Certain types of karmas, either with good or bad results, will keep one within the wheel of life, while others will liberate one to Nirvāṇa which is said to be the highest spiritual experience. Karma is an essential component to achieving Nirvāṇa. It does not stand in the way, rather it directs the way. I do like the "but actually one should aim for karmic nullity" thats bang on the button for me.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:Absolutely, I see where science has the difficulty.
Can you see where Christians have the difficulty in science not entertaining this as a possibility?
Not really. Science cannot do anything with this possibility. As a foundation for science it simply doesn't lead anywhere - it is not possible to examine a universe that was created according to hidden decisions using the tools that science provides. Science therefore does not use this assumption, but only because it cannot do so. It's pointless getting annoyed that science "won't entertain an omnipotent Creator" when science simply cannot do so. It's like getting annoyed that someone who only speaks French won't talk English (which also happens, of course).
I can't see why Christians think they have a problem with that - except that, as you say, people think science has "disproved God", so a lot of Christians assume there is some kind of conflict between the two. That's based on a misunderstanding, though, albeit a misunderstanding that is fostered by Creationist attacks on science.BrianCalgary wrote:I love science and what it tells me about how things work. I am amazed and thouroughly impressed that what we are using to discuss things actually works. I can not even begin to comprehend the code that is written to allow us to do what we do. Yet it does work.
It works with the materialist assumptions that Creationists feel we should throw away. As said, not possible - that's baby, not bathwater.BrianCalgary wrote:And when they can sit back and with sincerity claim that science has proven there is no God, then I have a problem. I know the learned bunch on this board have the ability to distinguish between the two, most people can't.
Heck, there are quite a few posters who honestly believe that to be the case.BrianCalgary wrote:The average person on the street is so concerned with their own existence and economic survival that it prevents them from delving into spiritual matters and when it is has been taught to them through their school books and through TV that everything 'evolved' and that the universe is a chance reality, and that there is no room for God, I get very sad. Does that make sense to you as well?
I attended my first niece's christening about 9 years ago, and my brother asked the priest if it was OK for me as an atheist to attend. He said "sure, he probably spends more time thinking about God than the rest of us".
On the other hand, God is not my chosen spirituality, but widening your comment out, yes, I dislike the pseudo-scientific materialism of consumerism. There's a noticeable body of people, mostly on the left wing and in the middle classes, that are uncomfortable with spirituality (unless it's sufficiently exotic to be incomprehensible enough to take up superficially). Given my belief in no afterlife, I perhaps get more frustrated than you do with unexamined lives!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Asiaprod wrote:Afraid I would have to disagree somewhat with that.
In Buddhism, Karma is one element in a chain of cause and effect. All actions are understood to create dormant potentials in the mind which will sprout into appropriate results when they meet with the right conditions. Certain types of karmas, either with good or bad results, will keep one within the wheel of life, while others will liberate one to Nirvāṇa which is said to be the highest spiritual experience. Karma is an essential component to achieving Nirvāṇa. It does not stand in the way, rather it directs the way. I do like the "but actually one should aim for karmic nullity" thats bang on the button for me.
I appreciate the clarification! What types of karma liberate then (last question off-topic)?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Scofflaw wrote:I appreciate the clarification! What types of karma liberate then (last question off-topic)?
That is a good question and I need a little time to sort that one out. Karma is problamatic in that all the Indian systems that support Karma have a different take on it. I could be glib and say "well, good karma of course" but I would be doing you a great disservice and insulting your intelligence to take that route. Let me bone up on it.:)0 -
Advertisement
-
> The average person on the street is so concerned with their own existence
> and economic survival that it prevents them from delving into spiritual
> matters and when it is has been taught to them through their school
> books and through TV that everything 'evolved' and that the universe
> is a chance reality, and that there is no room for God, I get very sad.
Brian -- I've quoted figures previously from the USA, where around 80% to 90% of people hold creationist views of one kind or another and belief in a god is even more pervasive at around 95% of the population. All ably propelled by a massively successful religious industry worth around $60 to $90 billion dollars (that's around 20%-25% of the budget of the US military).
Bearing in mind this almost universal public interest in god, why do you say that "there is no room for God"? I really can't understand what you mean at all.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:First of all, no matter how you look at it we are seeing the light of stars that at one point never existed. There is nothing to prevent God from creating a star and immediately having it's' light visible millions of light years away. I getthe feeling wicknight that you are trying to limit God and His abilities to that of physical laws?
There is nothing stopping him from doing that, but if he did do that it would f**k up the entire universe, so I doubt, assuming he exists, he did.
If he created all the stars 6,000 years ago and then placed the photons of light from these stars hitting the earth millions of light years away then nothing in the universe would match up. The fact that it does match up kinda shows God didn't do that.
He can, but we would know if he did.BrianCalgary wrote:God operates ouside of those physical laws. If He wanted to create it that way He can.
Is it not more natural to assume that God created the universe the way the universe looks like it was created, instead of thinking God created the universe and then faked a whole load of stuff to make it look like he created it another way? Why would he do that?
No, actually its the other way around. If God did create the universe 6,000 years ago nothing would be running smoothy. Everything would have had to have been faked, from the date of the Earth and the Moon, to the light travelling around the universe, to the movement of nebula.BrianCalgary wrote:The reason is possibly that it was necessary in order to have everything run smoothly and survive.
If he placed photons from events millions of light years away from us but taking place right now straight onto Earth then the entire universe is out of sync.
The nebula point is a good one actually. We know nebula expand over thousands of years. If the universe is 6,000 years old then God created these nebula in the middle of their expansion, expansion from a supernova that never actually happened. Not only that, but he then took all the photons from that gas ball and placed them hitting Earth, despite the fac that he fixed the speed of light so we would believe that these nebula formations happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. Bascially he faked the whole thing. Not only did he did he fake it all a certain way, but he made it look like he did a completely different fashion. David Blane eat your heart out.
There are galaxies that are millions of light years away from us that are slowly crashing into each other. This produces huge amounts of energy and heat. Standard science tells us this happens because the gravity of the galaxies attracts each other, so billions of years ago these galaxies started crashing into each other. But wait, no. God actually made the universe 6,000 years ago with these galaxies in the middle of crashing into each other. And then he did the whole giggery pokery with the photons so they ended up hitting the earth and describing an event that looks like it took place millions of years in the past, but is actually going on right now
And that still doesn't work because if it were true everything in the heavens would look completely static for millions of years, until the photons that naturally left the nebula or stars 6,000 years ago actual arrived at Earth. Unless God is constantly messing with this, constantly faking the entire universe. Which would kinda conflict with the whole "and then he rested" bit of the Bible
Which is more likely, that God is the biggest practical joker ever, or a passage written 3,000 years ago as a poem of creation is actually just a metephor and not literal?
It would mean we wouldn't be able to see them, but then time and the universe would actually work properly and we could actually trust what we test and observe. Personally I prefer the latter.BrianCalgary wrote:Physical laws were created. God could have created the stars that we see and had their light starting at source and then not arrive here for millions of years, but that would mean that we still wouldn't be able to see them.0 -
That why he created the universe 14.7 billions years ago instead of 6,000BrianCalgary wrote:First of all, no matter how you look at it we are seeing the light of stars that at one point never existed. There is nothing to prevent God from creating a star and immediately having it's' light visible millions of light years away. I getthe feeling wicknight that you are trying to limit God and His abilities to that of physical laws?
God operates ouside of those physical laws. If He wanted to create it that way He can. The reason is possibly that it was necessary in order to have everything run smoothly and survive. Physical laws were created. God could have created the stars that we see and had their light starting at source and then not arrive here for millions of years, but that would mean that we still wouldn't be able to see them.
But your problem with stars is not resolved simply by saying he created the stars with it's light visible millions of light years away. With SN1987 we have a star that in your cosmology never existed. It blew apart 164,000 years ago, 158,000 years before you believe the universe was created. Why would God create the light and catastrophic disintegration from a star he never created? How can the bible say the firmament proclaims his handiwork Psalm 19:1, if it shows us stars God never made?
Assyrian0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:Can you see where Christians have the difficulty in science not entertaining this as a possibility?
But we can never know.
Science, as Scofflaw points out, can only examine how the universe appears to work. If that is how it actually works, or if God is faking everything to make it appear like that is how it works, we can't tell.
If He is faking the appearence of the universe He is doing a very very good job at it, so good we can't tell He is doing it.
So if the universe and the Bible don't match up don't blame science, science simply studies how the universe appears to work.
Blame God for faking everything in the first place0 -
ROTFL That's wonderful Scofflaw, you've cheered me up for the day. ROTFL again.Scofflaw wrote:I attended my first niece's christening about 9 years ago, and my brother asked the priest if it was OK for me as an atheist to attend. He said "sure, he probably spends more time thinking about God than the rest of us".
Assyrian0 -
You know, I'm fairly sure I wasn't taught evolution in junior cert biology. Granted I've always disliked it so maybe I missed that, but I don't think I was. And I didn't take LC biology. Nor did I come cross evolution on tv. And I was brought up catholic.The average person on the street is so concerned with their own existence and economic survival that it prevents them from delving into spiritual matters and when it is has been taught to them through their school books and through TV that everything 'evolved'
So it hasn't been taught to me. The only time I gave it any attention was when I came across arguments about it on forums. I still don't have an opinion on abiogenesis, but it's plain to see from medicine alone, (and computer science algorithms I suppose) that evolution is a fact. 0 -
Wicknight
But you agree that if you lead a bad life you can repent on your death bed and be saved? That doesn't really seem like such a good system, does it?
The only thing worse than leading a bad life and being saved on your death bed is living a bad (or indeed a ‘good’) life and NOT being saved.
Relative to God, we are all unworthy sinners and NOBODY deserves to be saved.
We can only be saved by grace, as the hymn says “amazing grace that saved a wretch like me”.
Wicknight
Who taught you statistics ………..
Over 150,000 years the chances that any unbroken material or paternal lines would still remain are very very low. Which is why you have to go back 150,000 years to get an unbroken line to one woman.
IF you are correct (and the chance of breaking ancestral maternal lines INCREASES with time) then going back to 150,000 years would REDUCE the chances of maintaining an unbroken line – so your conclusion is in conflict with your supposition.
The chance of breaking maternal lines actually DECREASES with time.
If you have one woman at the start and she has say 5 daughters then her line can be wiped out by the death of only 5 people. However in the second generation these 5 women will produce 25 daughters and in the third generation these 25 women will produce 125 daughters. At this stage it becomes practically impossible to eliminate the original woman’s asexually transmitted Mitochondrial DNA - which all 125 women will have inherited. By the 7th generation the lineal descendants of the original woman will have expanded to over 78,000 and by the 10th generation (after only about 300 years) the original woman’s lineal descendants will amount to almost 2 million women. Obviously, the chance of ‘breaking’ the original woman’s lines of descent is effectively zero at that stage – and the LONGER it goes on, the LOWER the chance (of breakage) becomes. That is why Eve’s Mitochondrial DNA survived and was passed down to every person on Earth – and Molecular Genetics also proves this to be the case.
Wicknight
As I've said, she isn't the common ancestor of ALL of humanity. She is the most recent common ancestor of of all women.
M-Eve is both the most recent common ancestor of all women AND the common ancestor of ALL humanity.
ALL women have received their Mitochondrial DNA by lineal descent from M-Eve, while ALL men have received their Mitochondrial DNA asexually from their mothers (ALL of whom have received their Mitochondrial DNA by lineal descent from M-Eve). Therefore M-Eve is the common ancestor of ALL humanity.
Wicknight
No it doesn't. Mitochondrial DNA displays a high mutation rate, which is why it is used in genology since it is easy to tell differences in Mitochondrial DNA even amoung close relatives.
Once again you are wrong. Nuclear DNA, is used to establish close relationships such a genetic paternity, etc.
Mitochondrial DNA, because of it’s SLOW mutation rate, is used to establish the historical relationships between populations of people.
Wicknight
Because the mutation has been identified, and tested. And low and behold it is the thing that gives the (Nylon) bug this ability.
I understand that the codons for the enzyme system that breaks down the Nylon have been identified by gene mapping – but this is obviously not the same as proving that these enzyme systems were produced by a mutation.
Wicknight
The Nylon bug is a mutated strain of a bateria that, through this mutation, became able to eat Nylon, a process that the other, non-mutated bateria cannot do. Because of natural selection this bug thrived in areas rich with Nylon, surpassing the non-muated bug. This is classic example of natural selection and evolution in action.
The Nylon Bug is a particular variety of Bacterium that is able to utilise Nylon as a substrate, a process that other Bacteria cannot do without recombining the genetic information to do so into their genome.
Because of natural selection the Nylon Bug has thrived in areas rich with Nylon.
The Nylon bug is an excellent example Natural Selection in action (using pre-existing genetic information).
Wicknight
Evolution probably did "muck about" in the primordial soup of Earth for millions of years swinging between the gain and lose of complexity (or "information" as you keep calling it, incorrectly) in the early self-replicating molecules before something managed to take hold.
I see. We are all the result of “something managing to take hold” – and I was expecting that you had identified specific observable mechanisms – i.e. scientifically verifiable mechanisms.
Evolution has let me down again – I am so disappointed!!!
Wicknight
It only takes one successful mutation that creates more complex genetic structures. Over the millions of years it takes for these "astronomical increases" that is not only possible, it is likely
And all I want for Christmas is a new front tooth!!!
Unfortunately, your faith in mutations to deliver complex structures isn’t borne out by reality – where ALL mutations are observed to DEGRADE genetic information, which is a complexity REDUCING phenomenon.
Wicknight
evolution is a process that can and does takes place on Earth. We do know this, even you cannot argue against this because you can watch evolution under a microscope (Nylon bug anyone).
Natural Selection is a process that does takes place and we can observe Natural Selection, utilising pre-existing genetic information, in action
(Nylon for the Bug anyone!!)
Wicknight
JC we have a start (abogensis) and we have an end (modern life). We have a huge body of evidence in between.
And all we have ever OBSERVED is the so-called end (modern life).
We have never observed Abiogenesis in action – which isn’t surprising as it is ruled out by the Law of Biogenesis.
We also cannot even think of possible intermediate structures that retain functionality – and we certainly haven’t observed any continuua.
Wicknight
The Earth is at least a billion years old JC, and most likely 4.6 billion. That is simply a fact
The mathematical calculation of the odds of generating the Amino Acid sequence for a useful protein DOES require a billion billion billion million years – which is much older than the ‘oldest Earth’ postulated by Evolutionists.
However, in reality, this proves that the emergence of life via undirected processes (even with the assistance of Natural Selection) is an impossibility.0 -
Wicknight
Evolution is not undirected. It is directed by natural selection.
OK So you are saying that Evolution is directed by N S. But NS is itself an undirected process so it’s supposed derivative (Evolution) will also be undirected.
N S can ‘work’ when you have substantial extant information and mechanisms to harness this information to do useful things. However, N S cannot produce this information in the first place.
To illustrate. N S could generate a new useful protein IF the production of such a protein merely required the addition of another amino acid somewhere along the chain of another useful protein – but that is NOT what we observe with useful proteins. Each protein has a very distinct, specific and unique Amino Acid Sequence.
Useful proteins are NOT observed to be the result of small marginal additions of Amino Acids to other useful proteins or the combination of two existing useful protein chains – they have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SEQUENCES to other useful proteins.
Molecular Biology has therefore PROVEN that the development of more complex life by small gradual improvements is IMPOSSIBLE.
Wicknight
Protein evolution must likely works by the combining of very simple proteins (or the forerunners of proteins when talking about early life) into more complex proteins.
I like your use of the words “most likely works”!!!
Proteins are tightly specified structures with unique sequences. There is NO EVIDENCE that useful proteins are the result of the combination of other useful proteins.
Equally, the odds of any two protein chains combining to produce a specific useful third protein is still 10^^130 for a 100 chain protein.
Wicknight
Except for the tiny facts that science has proved the earth is 4.6 billions years old, proved that abiogensis is possible, proved that evolution and natural selection work and will create new more complex forms of life, proved that one species develops into another and proved that modern humans evolved some 200,000 years ago
NONE of the above has been OBSERVED by Science.
ALL of the above remain in the realm of speculation and conjecture.
Assyrian
Jesus didn't however say "AKA Adam and Eve", just male and female.
Jesus didn’t NEED to say “AKA Adam and Eve” – all his listeners were familiar with the Genesis account of the Creation of Adam and Eve – and in Mt 19:4 Jesus emphasised the Genesis basis of His statement by saying “Haven’t you read. He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female” (NIV).
Jesus was reminding his audience that God directly created a man and a woman – thereby making a statement about the equality and complimentarity of the sexes within marriage as well as re-confirming the Genesis Account of Direct Creation.
Assyrian
So if mankind was all living in one area then there is no problem with the flood being restricted to that area?
IF mankind was all living in one area they could indeed all be wiped out by a local flood.
However, the Geological evidence from ALL OVER THE WORLD indicates that a water-based catastrophe and sedimentation event of worldwide proportions occurred in the historic past.
Equally, Gen 6:7 indicates that God destroyed all life including the ‘fowls of the air’. Birds, would have dispersed away to safety from any local flood – to destroy them ALL would indeed require a worldwide Flood.
Assyrian
There is geological evidence for floods in different regions at different times, but no evidence of a global flood. Always when we have a flood at one location in the geological record, elsewhere in that stratum it is business as usual,
Firstly, could I point out that the presence of identifiable matching strata all over the world is indicative of a worldwide sedimentation event – and NOT localised floods.
Secondly, could I point out that every stratum is indicative of the sedimentation event which caused that particular stratum to be laid down – so no stratum can be describes a ‘business as usual’ – more like ‘flooding as usual’.
Assyrian
the early church was open to a non literal interpretation of the days in Genesis
The Nicene Creed starts with the words “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things, visible and invisible…….”
And to remove any ambiguity
The Apostle’s Creed begins “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth……”
Could I point out that the word “Maker” (in the Nicene Creed) and the word “Creator” (in the Apostles Creed) removes all doubt that the Early Churches believed in a literal Creation.
They also thought this belief to be so important that they placed it in the first sentence of their Professions of Faith.
These Creeds are STILL mandatory Articles of Faith for all Roman Catholics as well as within the the Anglican and Lutheran Churches – thereby making all of these Churches officially Creationist Churches.
Last time I checked, none of these Churches had modified or abandoned their Creeds.
Equally, non-conformist Reformed Churches largely believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis thereby also making these Churches Creationist as well.
The great historical theological divisions between Christian Churches WERE NOT about Creation – and I have actually never come across a Church Creed that stated a belief in “God the Evolver of Heaven and Earth”.
Assyrian
Sharing about 98% of our DNA with chimps is pretty strong evidence (for Macro-Evolution).
I would dispute the basis for this 98% figure that is bandied about.
In any event, it provides no more evidence for Evolution than the fact that the Human Brain and a Melon both contain 98% water. It is the critical 2% that makes ALL the difference.
Similarities between different creatures is evidence of a Common Designer – and not a Common Ancestor.
Our Mitochondrial DNA proves that our Common Ancestors were a Man and a Woman who lived less than 10,000 years ago.
Jesus Christ also confirmed this fact in MK 10:6 when He said “But at the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” (NIV).
Creation Scientists, as scientists, ARE willing to go where the evidence leads – unlike Evolutionists who have refused to do so on the Intelligent Design Issue.
Assyrian
All Christians believe God created heaven and earth and all of the life therein. We believe he made the lightning and formed us in our mothers womb. The modern paganism, the nature god Consolmagno warns against, is the one the believes God holds a bunch of lightening bolts in his hand and throws them down during a storm, instead of using the laws of electromagnetism and meteorology he designed, that he literally knits people together in their mothers womb instead or using biology and genetics, or molded all the different animal out of clay instead of using evolution.
Creationists give God His proper place as the Creator of the Universe and all life – and they therefore adore the Creator and not the creature.
Lightning Bolts and the Biogenesis of Humans obviously obey the Physical Laws of the Universe. However, you are CONFUSING this fact with the equally important fact that the ORIGINS of Humans and indeed the Universe itself is by definition OUTSIDE of the Laws of the Universe.
Evolutionists make the logical error of assuming that something can CREATE itself in contravention of the Law of Cause and Effect. This law states that the effect cannot be greater in size or in kind than the cause. No exception to the Law of Cause and Effect has ever been observed. This rules out the spontaneous Macro-Evolution of life into ever more information dense organisms i.e. it rules out Gradual Darwinian Evolution – and observed reality also supports this conclusion.
A Theistic Evolutionist could postulate that God (being omnipotent and omniscient) used Evolution instead of Direct Creation to ‘produce’ all life. However, neither the Bible nor observed reality support this contention – we have a fossil record with enormous gaps between kinds, living creatures with enormous gaps between kinds and an array of useful proteins with enormous differences between each one of them!!!!
Equally, both Genesis and the Creeds of all of the main Christian Churches declare unambiguously that God CREATED the Heavens and the Earth as well as all things both visible and invisible. There isn’t a hint of any form of gradualism or Evolution in the Genesis Account or the plain statements in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.
They could be WRONG (although as a Christian I don’t believe that they are) – but it is completely illogical to argue that somehow the word CREATE means EVOLVE.
Creation and Evolution are completely separate concepts. A Perfect Creation is a reflection of God’s absolute perfection while Evolution is a supposed process of increasing perfection that still requires the power of God to execute it.0 -
Assyrian
So how do supernovas work? A supernova they called SN1987A was seen in 1987, now this particular supernova happened 164,000 light years away (measured by triangulation). For God to create it with its light shining in the earth's sky, he would have to create a star that blew up 160,000 years before it was created.
You tell me how supernovas ‘work’ – if they are really so far away!!
Firstly, I don’t believe that a distance of 164,000 light years can be established by triangulation or indeed by any other method.
The diameter of the Earth’s orbit around the sun is only 186,000,000 miles or about 17 light minutes. Triangulation can therefore only measure distances of approximately 186,000,000,000,000 miles or about 32 light years due to the limitations of physics and instrumentation.
Secondly, if this supernova WAS 164,000 light years away, the star wouldn’t be visible at all to any light telescope on Earth. The apparent size of an average star with a diameter of our Sun would be less than 5,000-Angstrom Units (or the wavelength of light) at a distance of only 32 light years. In this regard, our Sun looks like another star when viewed from Pluto which is only 4,580,000,000 miles (or 7 light hours) away.
If a star beyond 32 Light Years went supernova then it could possibly be detected on Earth – but we wouldn’t know how much further away it was (if anything) beyond 32 Light Years.
The reason that Evolutionists postulate that the Universe is 10 billion light years in diameter is that they believe that it all started in the Big Bang and it has been expanding for the past 20 billion years at about 0.25 C. The distance ISN’T based on any observable measurement (because such a measurement is physically impossible). The 10 billion light year figure is merely based on the reasoning of Evolutionists!!!
Wicknight
"Oh lord, why have you never revealed the true nature of the universe to us and others on Earth".
And God will look back at YOU with a puzzled look on his face, and say. "What are you talking about?
I sent you J C didn’t I?"
Scofflaw
so being saved now rather than on your deathbed is....."eternal life insurance"?
It is ‘Eternal Life Assurance’ actually!!!!
However, like all Life Assurance Policies, you must do it while you are still alive.0 -
Interesting. Let's take Wicknight and Assyrian's ponts on board, and have a look at the Universe implied by a Young Earth. Let's do some...Creation Science!!!
Assume two supernovas, both currently visible from Earth - Supernova A with a distance of 6000 light years, Supernova B with a distance of 12000 light years.
Now, assuming God created A as a supernova 6000 years ago, that works out fine. On the other hand, let's examine Supernova B:
The greatest possible age for B is 6000 years, so in theory its light should still be 6000 light-years away. It isn't. So God created the light from B 6000 years ago, and placed it 6000 light-years away, at the same starting point as for A.
But wait! What if we had observed the part of the heavens where B now is a year ago? We should have seen the star that became supernova B! Obviously, that never existed, so we have a problem. Let's assume that God included a full 6000 year "pre-recording" of Star B (which never existed) before it became Supernova B.
So we've "seen" a 6000 year pre-recording, and now we can see the light of the "event" itself. Except of course we're not, because the light of the event was never anywhere near the supernova B - it started off 6000 light years closer to Earth than that.
Hmm. Now supernovas don't last 6000 years - the event lasts about a year. If God created B as a supernova, it burned out 5999 years ago. The light from that burnout is currently 6001 light years away, having taken 5999 years to cross from B (12000 light years away). Since we have to see that in a year, it obviously didn't start from B. It must have started from a point 6001 light years away. God didn't create B in the moment of supernova at all! He created it as a 6000-year post-supernova remnant - there's actually 12000 years worth of "tape" there.
Bear in mind that 1000 years ago all this was equally necessary, and it becomes clear that there's a sort of "event horizon" of reality about 6000 light-years away. Inside that, what you are seeing is the real Universe - outside that, what you are seeing is not a true picture of the Universe, but a big bunch of "special effects".
Now there's no point in many of these things existing, since Judgement Day, unless it is to come in millions of years, will intervene - let's assume it will definitely happen in the next 2000 years. The apparently visible Universe, then, goes maybe out to 8000 light-years away. Outside that, the "taped" version won't run out before Judgement Day. The "real" Universe is therefore about 8000 light years across, and we can't yet see the "reality" of the outer 2000 light years. This may be hard to reconcile with the apparent Universe that science seems to measure, but there you go - clearly it was foolish of them to throw away the "crystal sphere of fixed stars".
How does Creationism reconcile this with the fact that God cannot lie? The Universe as it appears to us is actually one great big lie - full of things that never existed, and never will.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
JC wrote:Once again you are wrong. Nuclear DNA, is used to establish close relationships such a genetic paternity, etc.
Mitochondrial DNA, because of it’s SLOW mutation rate, is used to establish the historical relationships between populations of people.
Sigh. Allow me to correct you. Anyone can look this stuff up, you know, JC - the question of who's incorrect can be sorted out in about 2 minutes.
* Mitochondria have their own genome of about 16,500 bp that exists outside of the cell nucleus. Each contains 13 protein coding genes, 22 tRNAs and 2 rRNAs.
* They are present in large numbers in each cell, so fewer samples is required.
* They have a higher rate of substitution (mutations where one nucleotide is replaced with another) than nuclear DNA making it easier to resolve differences between closely related individuals.
* They are inherited only from the mother, which allows tracing of a direct genetic line.
* They don't recombine. The process of recombination in nuclear DNA (except the Y chromosome) mixes sections of DNA from the mother and the father creating a garbled genetic history.JC wrote:You tell me how supernovas ‘work’ – if they are really so far away!!
Firstly, I don’t believe that a distance of 164,000 light years can be established by triangulation or indeed by any other method.
The diameter of the Earth’s orbit around the sun is only 186,000,000 miles or about 17 light minutes. Triangulation can therefore only measure distances of approximately 186,000,000,000,000 miles or about 32 light years due to the limitations of physics and instrumentation.
Secondly, if this supernova WAS 164,000 light years away, the star wouldn’t be visible at all to any light telescope on Earth. The apparent size of an average star with a diameter of our Sun would be less than 5,000-Angstrom Units (or the wavelength of light) at a distance of only 32 light years.
If a star just beyond 32 Light Years went supernova then it could possibly be detected on Earth – but we wouldn’t know how much further away it was (if anything) beyond 32 Light Years.
The reason that Evolutionists postulate that the Universe is 10 billion light years in diameter is that they believe that it all started in the Big Bang and it has been expanding for the past 20 billion years at about 0.25 C. The distance ISN’T based on any observable measurement (because such a measurement is physically impossible). The 10 billion light year figure is merely based on the circular reasoning of Evolutionists!!!
Would someone care to explain to JC how telescopes can use the spectrum outside the visible? Also how geometry works.JC wrote:Firstly, could I point out that the presence of identifiable matching strata all over the world is indicative of a worldwide sedimentation event – and NOT localised floods.
Well, it would be great then, wouldn't it, if there were such "identifiable matching strata", rather than all kinds of correlation difficulties, which are usually resolved by radiometric dating and common fossils? Oh, perhaps you mean there's limestone in more than one place? I'll ask it again - why doesn't the oil industry use Flood geology? Since you don't ever reply, I'll tell you - because it's demonstrably rubbish.
wearily,
Scofflaw0 -
So someone who leads a good moral life is, in Gods eyes, equal to someone who rapes babies for their entire life but then kinda feels sorry about it on his death bed when he is accepting Jesus into his life?J C wrote:Relative to God, we are all unworthy sinners and NOBODY deserves to be saved.
We can only be saved by grace, as the hymn says “amazing grace that saved a wretch like me”.
It doesn't increase with time, it increases with complexity. You need the time to balance out the complexity.J C wrote:IF you are correct (and the chance of breaking ancestral maternal lines INCREASES with time)
Yes but once they do this line is broken.J C wrote:M-Eve is both the most recent common ancestor of all women AND the common ancestor of ALL humanity.
ALL women have received their Mitochondrial DNA by lineal descent from M-Eve, while ALL men have received their Mitochondrial DNA asexually from their mothers
There were thousands of women around the time of M-Eve who have broken lines of accenstory to ALL humanity. But it is only the unbroken ones that can be traced back to M-Eve
Completely wrong, as Scofflaw explainedJ C wrote:Mitochondrial DNA, because of it’s SLOW mutation rate, is used to establish the historical relationships between populations of people.
You are right it isn't. Did I say gene mapping was how this mutation was identifed as causing the bug to eat Nylon? :rolleyes:J C wrote:I understand that the codons for the enzyme system that breaks down the Nylon have been identified by gene mapping – but this is obviously not the same as proving that these enzyme systems were produced by a mutation.
You really don't get what mutation is do you?J C wrote:The Nylon bug is an excellent example Natural Selection in action (using pre-existing genetic information).
As I Ccreationists Scientists I didn't think you actually thought about specific processes or mechanisms at all (you still haven't answered my question of what God actually did).J C wrote:and I was expecting that you had identified specific observable mechanisms – i.e. scientifically verifiable mechanisms.
But the models of early self-replicating molecules are numerious, you are free to read all of them.
Mutations can create and remove genetic complexity (or information as you still incorrectly call it). This has been explained to you before, a number of times JC with evidence :rolleyes:J C wrote:Unfortunately, your faith in mutations to deliver complex structures isn’t borne out by reality – where ALL mutations are observed to DEGRADE genetic information, which is a complexity REDUCING phenomenon.
Yes we have, and you don't understand the "law" of biogenesis at all.J C wrote:We have never observed Abiogenesis in action – which isn’t surprising as it is ruled out by the Law of Biogenesis.
And as you have been told a HUGE number of times, the odds of Amino Acid sequence randomingly falling into place is irrelivent since we know it didn't happen like that.J C wrote:The mathematical calculation of the odds of generating the Amino Acid sequence for a useful protein DOES require a billion billion billion million years – which is much older than the ‘oldest Earth’ postulated by Evolutionists.
So I can only assume, since this has been explained to you about a billion billion billion times, that you are quite happy to lie about things now to attempt to prove a point.J C wrote:There is NO EVIDENCE that useful proteins are the result of the combination of other useful proteins.
Er, yes, yes there is. As I told you
My GOD, quick run and tell all the astomomers this, I'm sure you will find they never thought of it ... what? whats that you say? They knew about this since the late 19th century? Impossible! Scientists are stupid, they make rash silly assumptions about things, and just make things up. Oh, right, they don'tJ C wrote:Firstly, I don’t believe that a distance of 164,000 light years can be established by triangulation or indeed by any other method.
Stars under a distance of about 100 light years are measured using parallax shift. And no JC the tranglisation doesn't take place on two places on Earth, it takes place on two different places of the Earths orbit (or is CS now teaching the Earth doesn't move after all, everything goes around it)
Stars over a distance of about 100 light years are measured using Cepheid variable stars for nearly a century. This process has been around since 1912, and was interestingly enough discovered by a Christian woman named Henrietta Leavitt. And even more amazingly it didn't turn her into a atheist on the road to hell ...
Oh and it is very very accurate. Unless the laws of physics are wrong, or being faked by God of course (always forget to add that disclaimer in)
Well that isn't actually true, you obviously don't understand what a supernova is (another lie or an honest mistake JC?) But then again the vast vast majority of astronomy is carried out using Radio Telescopes (which as Scofflaw points out meassure sprectrim well out side visiable light, at much larger frequencies), so even if it were true it wouldn't really matter.J C wrote:Secondly, if this supernova WAS 164,000 light years away, the star wouldn’t be visible at all to any light telescope on Earth.
Normally bio-chemists and "evolutionists" don't generally lead the field in astro-physics JC, think you might be confusing these two areas of science :rolleyes:J C wrote:The distance ISN’T based on any observable measurement (because such a measurement is physically impossible). The 10 billion light year figure is merely based on the circular reasoning of Evolutionists!!!
And by the way the distance is based on the simple laws of physics JC. Which, as I said, God must be faking if it isn't actually true. And as Assyrian points out, God doesn't lie.
These stars are millions of light years away. Or God is lying to us. Its your choice.0 -
I believe in micro-evolution, we have proof for it and it can be observed. I do not believe in macro evolution, which is the changing of one species to another. To believe we all came from some single-celled organism floating out in the sea somewhere is ludicrous. Creationism seems to make more sense, and it is in harmony with the bible.0
-
Henry90 wrote:I believe in micro-evolution, we have proof for it and it can be observed. I do not believe in macro evolution, which is the changing of one species to another. To believe we all came from some single-celled organism floating out in the sea somewhere is ludicrous. Creationism seems to make more sense, and it is in harmony with the bible.
Except, hey, we can do speciation in the lab:Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
We can even do unicellular to multicellular:Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
What more would you like?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Ok, look, that's it.The reason that Evolutionists postulate that the Universe is 10 billion light years in diameter is that they believe that it all started in the Big Bang and it has been expanding for the past 20 billion years at about 0.25 C. The distance ISN’T based on any observable measurement (because such a measurement is physically impossible). The 10 billion light year figure is merely based on the reasoning of Evolutionists!!!
Stop insulting physics, and for goodness' sakes stop confusing it with biology.
Evolution has NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICS.
The world of science is NOT OUT TO GET YOU.0 -
Wicknight
So someone who leads a good moral life is, in Gods eyes, equal to someone who rapes babies for their entire life but then kinda feels sorry about it on his death bed when he is accepting Jesus into his life?
Yes, it’s based on the ‘Parable of the Lost Sheep’.
Jesus Christ came to save repentant sinners and not to condemn them.
However, you cannot ‘kinda feel sorry’ for your sins – but Jesus confirms that ALL sinners no matter how vile, will be saved if they repent and believe on Him. In fact in Lk 15:7b Jesus himself confirms that “there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.”
By God’s standards none of us are righteous. We can only become so through being saved by His (unmerited) grace!!!
Scofflaw
* Mitochondria have their own genome of about 16,500 bp that exists outside of the cell nucleus. Each contains 13 protein coding genes, 22 tRNAs and 2 rRNAs.
* They are present in large numbers in each cell, so fewer samples is required.
* They have a higher rate of substitution (mutations where one nucleotide is replaced with another) than nuclear DNA making it easier to resolve differences between closely related individuals.
* They are inherited only from the mother, which allows tracing of a direct genetic line.
Mitochondria do indeed have their own genome and they are present in large numbers in the cell, so they are easier to recover at, for example the scene of a crime. For this reason, the early research into ‘genetic fingerprinting’ focussed on Mitochondrial DNA (as distinct from the more difficult (to recover and analyse) Nuclear DNA now used in ‘fingerprinting’). However, it was soon discovered that Mitochondrial DNA was so similar between individuals that it couldn’t be used for ‘genetic fingerprinting’ and that is actually how Mitochondrial Eve was also discovered.
If somebody wants to establish genetic paternity or indeed genetic maternity beyond reasonable doubt they use Nuclear DNA profiling. If they want to establish how closely related some particular group of people are to another group they use Mitochondrial DNA profiling.
Wicknight
Stars under a distance of about 100 light years are measured using parallax shift. And no JC the tranglisation doesn't take place on two places on Earth, it takes place on two different places of the Earths orbit
Scofflaw
Would someone care to explain to JC how telescopes can use the spectrum outside the visible? Also how geometry works.
I am of course aware that radio-telescopes can ‘see’ further that optical ones. However, my point still remains valid that if we see the light emanating from a supernova we cannot definitively conclude that it is much more than about 30 light years away.
I too know how triangulation works. If we take angles at the opposite sides of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun we have a triangulation base of 186,000,000 miles or about 17 light minutes.
Triangulation can therefore only measure distances of a maximum of 186,000,000,000,000 miles or about 32 light years due to the limitations of physics and instrumentation. I am actually being excessively generous even at that as it is analogous to attempting to measure a distance of 1,000 Km (from Dublin to Madrid) by measuring the angular distance of moving the theadolite over a distance of one metre in Dublin!!!
Such an angular distance is considerably less than 1 angular second and so it is impossible to measure with any precision. For example, the angular distance over a one metre triangulation base as measured from Dublin to Cape Town is also less than 1 angular second. It is therefore impossible to measure the distance to either Madrid or Cape Town using a 1 metre triangulation base and so it is also impossible to measure distances in excess of 32 light years using the Earth’s orbital diameter of 17 light minutes as a triangulation base.
Wicknight
You really don't get what mutation is do you?
Touché Wicknight.
Scofflaw
the models of early self-replicating molecules are numerous, you are free to read all of them.
I have no doubt that the models may be as numerous as models on a catwalk during Fashion Week – but the observations in the real world are non-existent.0 -
So, I have a question. What about the MHC-1 protein? The MHC-1 (Major Histocompatibility Complex 1) is a protein that holds lysed snippets of various proteins found within the cell for inspection by passing t-cells. If the protein belongs to a pathogen, the t-cell triggers the infected cell to commit apoptosis and die, therefore preventing the spread of the pathogen. MHC-2 is similar, except that it presents proteins found outside the cell.
Now, let's examine the structures of these two proteins. MHC-2 is basically symmetrical, with its }{ cup shape in two neat halves. The MHC-1 protein, however, is shaped peculiarly - it contains three-quarters or the cup shape but is missing its second leg. For this reason, the protein ins unstable unless complimented by another, independently-made beta protein.
This serves no purpose whatsoever except to weaken the human immune system, cause the cell to expend more energy, and make viruses like cytomegalovirus better able to interfere with the MHC protein. I present this as a classic example of Incompetent Design - there is no reason, from a design standpoint, that this protein can't be complete and stable on its own. Under the theory of evolution, however, this mismatched protein makes perfect sense - go with whatever works, even if it's not the most efficient design.
Or hell, if this is too complicated for you, just examine the human knee. Why is it so fragile and easy to permanently damage, when it's so important? Just to punish the arthritic elderly and football players?0 -
Yes you can. Quite easily and preciesly I might addJ C wrote:However, my point still remains valid that if we see the light emanating from a supernova we cannot definitively conclude that it is much more than about 30 light years away.
Well thats just wrong (on Earth measurements based on triangulation can reach as far as 100 light years and the Hippacros satellite can measure distances of 1,600 light years using triangulation)J C wrote:Triangulation can therefore only measure distances of a maximum of 186,000,000,000,000 miles or about 32 light years due to the limitations of physics and instrumentation
But as I already told you, stars over a distance of 1,500 light years are not measured using triangulation. :rolleyes:
How many times do I have to tell you this, abiogenisis has been observed in labsJ C wrote:I have no doubt that the models may be as numerous as models on a catwalk during Fashion Week – but the observations in the real world are non-existent.
I would also point that God has never been observed doing anything, ever, let alone creating life or whole planets out of thin air0 -
Macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution over long periods of time. Eventually the changes produced by micro-evolution will be so numerous in the species that it is a different species that what it was say a million years ago.Henry90 wrote:I believe in micro-evolution, we have proof for it and it can be observed. I do not believe in macro evolution, which is the changing of one species to another.
It seems rather strange to believe in micro-evolution, but believe that this process somehow stops dead in its tracks just before it makes enough changes to seperate one species from another. What stops it, how does micro-evolution know to stop at a certain point and make no more changes to a species?Henry90 wrote:To believe we all came from some single-celled organism floating out in the sea somewhere is ludicrous.
More ludicrious than saying a supernatural god created the earth and life out of thin air only a few thousand years ago and then faked the entire universe to make it look like he didn't?Henry90 wrote:Creationism seems to make more sense, and it is in harmony with the bible.
The Bible has been wrong about so many things to do with science, why believe this aspect when the natural world is telling us something different.0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:Wicknight
So someone who leads a good moral life is, in Gods eyes, equal to someone who rapes babies for their entire life but then kinda feels sorry about it on his death bed when he is accepting Jesus into his life?
Yes, it’s based on the ‘Parable of the Lost Sheep’.
Jesus Christ came to save repentant sinners and not to condemn them.
However, you cannot ‘kinda feel sorry’ for your sins – but Jesus confirms that ALL sinners no matter how vile, will be saved if they repent and believe on Him. In fact in Lk 15:7b Jesus himself confirms that “there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.”
By God’s standards none of us are righteous. We can only become so through being saved by His (unmerited) grace!!!
Kind of makes Christian "morality" rather suspect! You should be good, but there's a "get out of jail free card" there.J C wrote:Scofflaw
You really don't get what mutation is do you?
Touché Scofflaw.
Crikey. You could at least have the decency to attribute quotes correctly when they're from this thread! Nor is it ay all clear what "touché Wicknight" would mean. Come to that, it doesn't sound very JC-ish, but we'll go with benefit of the doubt.
Also, as a matter of interest, what exactly makes it impossible to measure angles of less than one second? Lack of measuring units, do you think? Wasn't a metre originally defined as 0.00054 of an angular second on the surface of the earth (1/10,000,000 of the distance between the pole and equator)?
regards,
Scofflaw0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement