The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

Oh, and while I'm watching my 2 hour long EV VS ID video, I thought I would also throw you another debunking challenge just to keep you on your toes:

Genesis 17:9-12 (google it) written somewhere between 1450 - 1410 BC, tells us of the Abrahamic Covenant to be marked with circumcision of every male 8 days after birth Keep in mind that this covenant was to establish God's promise to provide eternal life for every born again believer (the seed of Abraham), as Abraham was mans spokesperson and father in this agreement which was sealed with God's very own blood 2009 years ago.

Now here is some medical scientific fact to consider in relation to this passage of scripture. Due to a recent discovery, we now know that Vitamin K is necessary for blood clotting. A newly born human is at severe risk of haemorrage from day one as they are born with insufficient levels of vitamin k necessary for blood clotting. Vitamin K is responsible for the production of prothrombin. Vitamin K and prothrombin combine to form blood coagulation which is essential for surgical procedure. This is why we now inject new borns with vitamin k from day one to prevent the risk of them bleeding to death.

On the 8th day of a new born's life, the levels of prothrombin are elevated above 100 percent of normal. This one day is the perfect and most safest day for surgery.

Just another coincidence? I seriously beg to differ
Abraham did not pick the eighth day after many centuries of trial-and-error experiments. Neither he nor any of his company from the ancient city of Ur in the Chaldees ever had been circumcised. It was a day picked by the Creator of vitamin K.

Moses' (the author of Genesis) information, was not only scientifically accurate, but was 3500 years ahead of its time!!! How on earth could he have known this? Here is the perfect answer for you written by the Apostle Paul: 2 Timothy 3:16 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.'

People used to use leeches because they thought it let out the "bad blood". Leeches apparently do serve a useful purpose in that they inject anti-oxidants into the blood or some such but the people didn't know this, all they knew was that sometimes people who were given leeches got better. Similarly, trepanning is used to this day for people who have pressure on their brain but in the old days people thought it let out evil spirits. We also don't know that Abraham was the first person ever to circumcise anyone, we just have the word of a 3450 year old document. The point is not that they happened to get one or two things right, it would only be relevant if they got everything right, which they clearly didn't.

Also if God didn't want us to have foreskins he should have made us without them

man of faith

I'm not making the claim that Moses knew of the necessity of Vitamin K. I am claiming that God did though, because the scripture was recorded as God's instruction. No author of any book of the Bible knew anything about the necessity of vitamin k, hence it is not recorded in there. Further confirmation of the point I have raised in this finding.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

I'm not making the claim that Moses knew of the necessity of Vitamin K. I am claiming that God did though, because the scripture was recorded as God's instruction. No author of any book of the Bible knew anything about the necessity of vitamin k, hence it is not recorded in there. Further confirmation of the point I have raised in this finding.

If you're telling us that god was giving us medical information, it begs the question why didn't he tell us about bacteria and viruses and antibiotics etc. You know, stuff that would be useful?

man of faith

yes, you are correct that man didn't get everything right. Man is rebellious and disobedient by nature. But this is not talking about the decisions of man, this is talking about the instructions of God.

He made us with foreskins to seperate the sheeps from the goats (figuratively speaking). As circumcision was to be a mark of those abiding under His Covenant - only a logical additive don't you think?

man of faith

I was getting to that. Amazing discoveries about quarantine and treatment of disease are found in Leviticus. You'll have to give me a bit of time for a comprehensive response to your comment.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

I was getting to that. Amazing discoveries about quarantine and treatment of disease are found in Leviticus. You'll have to give me a bit of time for a comprehensive response to your comment.

Could I save you a bit of time by telling you that there is absolutely nothing in the bible that will convince me that the christian god exists?

wolfsbane

man of faith wrote: »

I'm sure you have all heard about mark of the beast 666 and the one world governement talked about in Revelation. For the mark to be introduced, we need to have a one world government system.

And one world gov has finally arrived. The mark, is already being tested all throughout the world and will be ready to use in place of cash very soon. All the technology has been installed everywhere. The powers that be have orchestrated the global economic crash for a very specific reason - NEW WORLD ORDER. World domination by the banking cartels - Rothschilds and Rockafellas to name a few. Watch the following if freedom means something to you. THIS IS HIGH PRIORITY AND ABSOLUTELY URGENT TO WATCH!!!! THIS IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

The fall of the great American Republic, courtesy of Barack Obama.

also check out www.infowars.com

To be fair to man of faith, we should not assume anything contrary to the government's view is a conspiracy theory.

I've done a quick check for a debunk on Lord Monckton's assertions, but so far the response is either 'ignore it, as it must be conspiracy crap' or 'what's wrong with a world government anyway?'.

Nothing that says the Treaty will not in fact do all that Monckton says.

Anyone found anything else?

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you're telling us that god was giving us medical information, it begs the question why didn't he tell us about bacteria and viruses and antibiotics etc. You know, stuff that would be useful?

Indeed you'd even have to ask why nothing was done about the ridiculous rates childbirth maternal deaths which in the 1800s peaked at over 40%!:eek: However, to be fair, it is worth noting that the estimate for around the time of the bible was about 1% of mammy's. As for babies though, well, medical statistic tend to have percise parameters so it's hard to get a totality so I'm open to correction on this one but wiki says 200-300 or of every thousand born!
Surely telling us safe labour practices would have been alot better than telling us about some abstract vitamin???

man of faith

Oh come on Sam, your not backing out are you?

If it's too confronting for you then I understand. This is extremely confronting information for a devout atheist.

I don't want to insult your pride Sam. If you choose to disbelieve, then this is your choice which I must respect.

You know I was thinking before about one of my previous posts, where I was talking about the flaws of perceiving God with the logical mind. If you don't want to entertain the possibility that God exists with your logical mind, then you won't be able to see His existence. Don't get me wrong though - God will fully integrate Himself with your logical mind, but He won't do so without an invite. The reason that you can't see Him is because He will not over-ride your will. He is the perfect gentleman.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Put simply wolfsbane, that's because you are expecting rebuttals to questions asked by people who do not understand evolution. Someone trying to defend gravity will not be able to provide evidence of proteins spontaneously forming either but that's because no one has ever claimed that gravity causes proteins to spontaneously form and neither have any evolutionists.

I don't doubt your sincerity for a minute but the top creationists could not but be lying, We know of many "mutations giving such an increase in functional complexity" and the top creationists know this, they have been presented with the evidence. They just keep saying they haven't so they can convince people like yourself.

OK, Sam and Wicknight, humour me on the lying issue. Show me the many "mutations giving such an increase in functional complexity" which my linked article denied.
The gene pools of today carry vast quantities of information coding for the performance of projects and functions which do not exist in the theoretical ‘primeval cell’. Hence, in order to support protozoon-to-man evolution, one must be able to point to instances where mutation has added a new ‘sentence’ or gene coding for a new project or function. This is so regardless of one’s assumptions on the survival value of any project or function.

We do not know of a single mutation giving such an increase in functional complexity. Probabilistic considerations would seem to preclude this in any case, or at least make it an exceedingly rare event, far too rare to salvage evolution even over the assumed multibillion year time span.

man of faith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People used to use leeches because they thought it let out the "bad blood". Leeches apparently do serve a useful purpose in that they inject anti-oxidants into the blood or some such but the people didn't know this, all they knew was that sometimes people who were given leeches got better. Similarly, trepanning is used to this day for people who have pressure on their brain but in the old days people thought it let out evil spirits. We also don't know that Abraham was the first person ever to circumcise anyone, we just have the word of a 3450 year old document. The point is not that they happened to get one or two things right, it would only be relevant if they got everything right, which they clearly didn't.

Also if God didn't want us to have foreskins he should have made us without them

Malty_T wrote: »

Indeed you'd even have to ask why nothing was done about the ridiculous rates childbirth maternal deaths which in the 1800s peaked at over 40%!:eek: However, to be fair, it is worth noting that the estimate for around the time of the bible was about 1% of mammy's. As for babies though, well, medical statistic tend to have percise parameters so it's hard to get a totality so I'm open to correction on this one but wiki says 200-300 or of every thousand born!
Surely telling us safe labour practices would have been alot better than telling us about some abstract vitamin???

Malty and Sam, read this link: http://www.searchgodsword.org/con/ntb/view.cgi?number=T4247

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

Oh come on Sam, your not backing out are you?

If it's too confronting for you then I understand. This is extremely confronting information for a devout atheist.

I don't want to insult your pride Sam. If you choose to disbelieve, then this is your choice which I must respect.

I wouldn't call what I'm doing backing out. You're going to give a big list of stuff from the old testament that appears to have some sort of medical benefit if you interpret it a certain way and my response is going to be one of the following:

1. Coincidence
2. It was a practice that was found to be beneficial but they didn't know why (eg circumcision) so they made it a commandment of god so people wouldn't question it
3. Dodgy/wishful interpretation

I can tell you now that that is going to be my response to any "medical evidence" from the old testament and we both know that you're not going to accept those answers so you spending time compiling a list is an exercise in futility. It's confirmation bias, just like with the bible code where you point to the one or two things it happened to get right but ignore the vast amounts of junk it generates. It's the human propensity to believe what we want to believe.

man of faith wrote: »

You know I was thinking before about one of my previous posts, where I was talking about the flaws of perceiving God with the logical mind. If you don't want to entertain the possibility that God exists with your logical mind, then you won't be able to see His existence. Don't get me wrong though - God will fully integrate Himself with your logical mind, but He won't do so without an invite. The reason that you can't see Him is because He will not over-ride your will. He is the perfect gentleman.

To flip it around, when someone is desperate to justify his belief in god he will find him everywhere, any old "evidence" will do and it doesn't matter if the evidence against is overwhelming, he will cling to whatever he can find to allow him to keep his cherished belief. We see it all the time with things like the tree stump in Limerick or Jesus appearing in a toasted cheese sandwich. Here's an Islamic "miracle".

I am very eager to entertain the possibility that god exists, it'd be great if there was an all powerful all loving being watching over me but my eagerness does not and should not compromise my objectivity. I know all too well that human beings have a powerful ability to convince ourselves of something that we want to be true and I also know of our propensity to attribute natural phenomena to the supernatural, eg lightning and Thor. As I said earlier, at most one branch of one religion in the world is right so the vast majority of the world has unquestionably got it wrong and I will not accept any particular religions claims to be true until they can prove them to me. Lining up a few coincidences from the old testament just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Also as I said earlier, show me an amputee who has prayed for his arm to regrow and had his prayer answered and I will be convinced (or at least a lot closer to belief than I am today :P)

Zombrex

man of faith wrote: »

I'm not making the claim that Moses knew of the necessity of Vitamin K. I am claiming that God did though, because the scripture was recorded as God's instruction.

Doesn't matter, neither Moses nor God mentioned Vit K anywhere in the Bible.

You are just assuming they knew this, and then claiming how amazing it was that they did as if that proves something.

It is like assuming the Egyptians knew about atomic theory and then saying it is amazing that they knew about atomic theory.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, Sam and Wicknight, humour me on the lying issue. Show me the many "mutations giving such an increase in functional complexity" which my linked article denied.
The gene pools of today carry vast quantities of information coding for the performance of projects and functions which do not exist in the theoretical ‘primeval cell’. Hence, in order to support protozoon-to-man evolution, one must be able to point to instances where mutation has added a new ‘sentence’ or gene coding for a new project or function. This is so regardless of one’s assumptions on the survival value of any project or function.

We do not know of a single mutation giving such an increase in functional complexity. Probabilistic considerations would seem to preclude this in any case, or at least make it an exceedingly rare event, far too rare to salvage evolution even over the assumed multibillion year time span.

Why do you and JC keep saying things that have nothing to do with evolutionary biology?

Functional complexity is irrelevant to evolutionary biology. It is molecular information theory that is relevant. This is the information that results in an increase in efficiency of biological functions, and also the development of novel functionality. Evolution therefore depends on the validity of molecular information theory . Refute molecular information theory in your posts, because if you refute anything other than molecular information theory then you are not refuting evolution. If you do refute molecular information theory , or point to scientists who have refuted molecular information theory then you will have refuted evolution on the grounds of molecular information theory , which is a prefectly valid refutation. Remember, molecular information theory is the key, not silly notions of functional complexity.




Here is a link on molecular information theory in case you want to read more about molecular information theory . molecular information theory really is a fascinating topic.

Sam Vimes

What's the theory again Morbert?

man of faith

If I were to show you any of the countless numbers of miracle evidence, you would not believe it. You would dispel it as either lies or delusion. That's why it seems pointless and a waste of time to show you anything about it. It would be so far from your mind being able to process it, that you would lash out in some mocking critical manner ie. the spaghetti monster or some other mocking gest just to pull down my credibility and make me look like a lunatic. I won't give you the pleasure.

There are absolutely incredible miracles that have taken place, and millions of people all throughout the world have came to accept Jesus as Lord as a result. I have seen things that have been seen by all the other people present in the room that would make your hair stand on end. But as I said, I don't want to open the door for your criticism because I know it will be mocking and derogatory. I'm a human being with feelings and I don't like being mocked by someone diametrically opposed to my beliefs. They are very sacred to me.

There are absolute mountains of evidence to underline The Bible's credibility. I haven't even scratched the surface. This book would have to be the most closely scrutinised book in history, and it has survived with flying colours every time. What appear to be contradictions can be proven to be the exact opposite. Any attack you can launch against The Bible, will be sustained, no matter what. It is backed with incredible accuracy to the historical record.
If everything I have shown you is coincidence, that's a pretty bizaare amount of coincidence all coming from one book and I haven't even scratched the surface.

Sam, our conversation is futile. Anything I say will be scoffed at and viewed with your blinding bias, so what's the point. As far as I'm concerned, I will just leave your soul with God to sought out.

PDN

man of faith wrote: »

If I were to show you any of the countless numbers of miracle evidence, you would not believe it. You would dispel it as either lies or delusion. That's why it seems pointless and a waste of time to show you anything about it. It would be so far from your mind being able to process it, that you would lash out in some mocking critical manner ie. the spaghetti monster or some other mocking gest just to pull down my credibility and make me look like a lunatic. I won't give you the pleasure.

There are absolutely incredible miracles that have taken place, and millions of people all throughout the world have came to accept Jesus as Lord as a result. I have seen things that have been seen by all the other people present in the room that would make your hair stand on end. But as I said, I don't want to open the door for your criticism because I know it will be mocking and derogatory. I'm a human being with feelings and I don't like being mocked by someone diametrically opposed to my beliefs. They are very sacred to me.

There are absolute mountains of evidence to underline The Bible's credibility. I haven't even scratched the surface. This book would have to be the most closely scrutinised book in history, and it has survived with flying colours every time. What appear to be contradictions can be proven to be the exact opposite. Any attack you can launch against The Bible, will be sustained, no matter what. It is backed with incredible accuracy to the historical record.
If everything I have shown you is coincidence, that's a pretty bizaare amount of coincidence all coming from one book and I haven't even scratched the surface.

Sam, our conversation is futile. Anything I say will be scoffed at and viewed with your blinding bias, so what's the point. As far as I'm concerned, I will just leave your soul with God to sought out.

Man of faith, I would suggest to you that if you want to discuss creationism and evolution then this thread is the place for that.

If you want to discuss atheism, and what you think are arguments are against it, then could you take it to the Atheism & Agnosticism forum?

To be honest, I'm a born again Christian pastor, and I'm not finding your arguments very convincing at all. But the atheists are rather limited in how they can respond to you here because of our Charter.

So, if it's Creationism you want to discuss, then here it is. If you want to discuss atheism then take it to A&A. If you want to discuss Christian issues with other christians then we have a whole forum here for that.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

If I were to show you any of the countless numbers of miracle evidence, you would not believe it. You would dispel it as either lies or delusion. That's why it seems pointless and a waste of time to show you anything about it. It would be so far from your mind being able to process it, that you would lash out in some mocking critical manner ie. the spaghetti monster or some other mocking gest just to pull down my credibility and make me look like a lunatic. I won't give you the pleasure.

There are absolutely incredible miracles that have taken place, and millions of people all throughout the world have came to accept Jesus as Lord as a result. I have seen things that have been seen by all the other people present in the room that would make your hair stand on end. But as I said, I don't want to open the door for your criticism because I know it will be mocking and derogatory. I'm a human being with feelings and I don't like being mocked by someone diametrically opposed to my beliefs. They are very sacred to me.

This is because there is always a level of ambiguity in miracles. Most of them have no evidence to support them other than someone's personal experience which will never be enough to convince me of the supernatural because of the aforementioned flaws in human perception and the rest are just unlikely things that are attributed to god because people don't understand probability and that unlikely=/=impossible. And remember that other religions all have their miracles to prove their own gods too. As I said, show me a miracle that is totally unambiguous, that can only be explained as a miracle of god and which can be independently verified as having been done by god and I will believe. And I don't mean just something that can't be explained, I mean something that has been verified to have been done by god. This practice of attributing everything we can't currently explain to the supernatural has held humanity back for too long already.

man of faith wrote: »

There are absolute mountains of evidence to underline The Bible's credibility. I haven't even scratched the surface. This book would have to be the most closely scrutinised book in history, and it has survived with flying colours every time. What appear to be contradictions can be proven to be the exact opposite. Any attack you can launch against The Bible, will be sustained, no matter what. It is backed with incredible accuracy to the historical record.
If everything I have shown you is coincidence, that's a pretty bizaare amount of coincidence all coming from one book and I haven't even scratched the surface.

What you mean is that anything that appears to be a contradiction can be interpreted so that it's not. If the bible could be proven there would only be one religion in the world and there wouldn't be thousands of branches of it.

man of faith wrote: »

Sam, our conversation is futile. Anything I say will be scoffed at and viewed with your blinding bias, so what's the point.

Right back at ya mate. Except the difference between the two of us is that I am eager to accept a religion because they promise great things for belief but as you said a few days ago, "too much is at stake". You can't objectively look at what I'm saying, it doesn't matter how convincing someone is if you've been scared into thinking you'll burn for eternity if he convinces you.

man of faith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you're telling us that god was giving us medical information, it begs the question why didn't he tell us about bacteria and viruses and antibiotics etc. You know, stuff that would be useful?

Another link to answer your questions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp

wolfsbane

monosharp wrote: »

Wolfsbane, first you must define what a fly and a non-fly is. You do realise your not even using scientific terminology here ?

Please describe the biological traits of a 'fly' and tell us what constitutes a non-fly. That or use some real scientific terminology.

Yes, I realise I'm not being scientific in my language. I was thinking specifically of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster.

So maybe you can help me by pointing out how far generations of fruit flies have changed from the originals being tested:

What new traits have they added?

What new genetic sequences do they possess?

Do they have the ability to interbreed with them?

Are any no longer visibly recognisable as fruit flies?

Are any no longer genetically recognisable as fruit flies?

Thanks.

man of faith

PDN wrote: »

Man of faith, I would suggest to you that if you want to discuss creationism and evolution then this thread is the place for that.

If you want to discuss atheism, and what you think are arguments are against it, then could you take it to the Atheism & Agnosticism forum?

To be honest, I'm a born again Christian pastor, and I'm not finding your arguments very convincing at all. But the atheists are rather limited in how they can respond to you here because of our Charter.

So, if it's Creationism you want to discuss, then here it is. If you want to discuss atheism then take it to A&A. If you want to discuss Christian issues with other christians then we have a whole forum here for that.

Ok, but tell me why a Christianity board is so full of people who are atheists. The conviction of my beliefs make me want to try to reach these people. These people are human beings who I feel love and compassion for. They desperately want the answers just like all of us do and I enjoy devoting my time to pass on information that may hopefully reach them.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing the Bible just as much as the next Christian. It grieves me when I encounter people so closed to it. I would rather just tell them how much God loves them, but they don't care to hear that.

I can't believe that you think my arguments are not convincing being a Christian pastor. These are arguments that confirm the Bible's credibility and shows us just how much we can rely on it as God's devinely inspired word.

My apologies the other day about comments made to you. I was unaware of your moderator status and the fact that you are a Christian pastor. I was only brand new to the board.

If you want me to leave, I will do so gracefully. But I do ask that you would just let me speak.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

Why do you and JC keep saying things that have nothing to do with evolutionary biology?

Functional complexity is irrelevant to evolutionary biology. It is molecular information theory that is relevant. This is the information that results in an increase in efficiency of biological functions, and also the development of novel functionality. Evolution therefore depends on the validity of molecular information theory . Refute molecular information theory in your posts, because if you refute anything other than molecular information theory then you are not refuting evolution. If you do refute molecular information theory , or point to scientists who have refuted molecular information theory then you will have refuted evolution on the grounds of molecular information theory , which is a prefectly valid refutation. Remember, molecular information theory is the key, not silly notions of functional complexity.




Here is a link on molecular information theory in case you want to read more about molecular information theory . molecular information theory really is a fascinating topic.

Hmm. You need to have a word with Sam and Wicknight, for they believe they have many examples of such to show me.

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Put simply wolfsbane... the top creationists could not but be lying

Very true, infact here's a typical conversation between a creation and a proper scientist..

Look how honest creationist debaters are!

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. You need to have a word with Sam and Wicknight, for they believe they have many examples of such to show me.

Well I presume you are referring to functional complexity defined by ID proponents like Dembski et al. This "specified complexity" is irrelevant to evolution.

There may be a relevant definition of functional complexity. If there is, then it certainly has nothing to do with the Creationist/ID definition.

But do you understand that it is the increase in molecular information that makes evolution not only possible, but supported by molecular biologists and information theorists.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

You don't believe in radiocarbon dating remember ? :pac::P:rolleyes::D

...I certainly don't believe that radiometric dating (of rocks) is valid. Like I have said, the discovery of the first polystrate fossil tree should have invalidated the radiometric hypothesis.

Radiocarbon dating has some validity ... but the Turin Shroud age controversy highlights the deficiencies of this method which is only capable of measurement over thousands (and not millions) of years

wolfsbane

darjeeling wrote: »

Yup.

'Creation science' claims that there are distinct 'kinds' ('baramins') that were created separately, and that 'micro-evolution' acts within these kinds, resulting in intra-kind speciation. Creationists have made some efforts to identify these kinds. See this 2006 article by Todd Charles Wood* for a review of their methods, and a list of kinds they claim to have identified (see Table of baramins).

Before looking at the results, lets make a brief descent into creationist taxonomy. Creationists use the terms 'holobaramins', 'monobaramins', 'apobaramins' and 'basic types'. A 'holobaramin', they claim, is the complete set of creatures descended from the original created members of a kind. A 'monobaramin' is a subset of these - i.e monobaramins should ultimately get lumped together to make a holobaramin. Conversely, apobaramins contain members of multiple holobaramins and remain to be split up. The final category - 'Basic types' - are animals that can interbreed and are the equivalent of monobaramins, though with the added weight of evidence of interfertility.

Creationists lift most of their taxonomy from conventional science, so we see a whole load of familiar latin names cropping up. They then try to impose their own classification on the evolutionary tree of life. This basically involves lopping off branches, then declaring each offcut to be a separately created mini-tree. Where the axe falls is fairly arbitrary, but you'll probably see an attempt to justify it using some spurious interpretation of morphological / behavioural / ontogenic traits.

OK, enough background - what have creationists come up with? Well, picking a few rows from Wood's 2006 table:

Camelidae (camels, lamas etc) - 'monobaramin'
Felidae (cats large & small) - 'holobaramin'
Cercopithecidae (old world monkeys) - 'holobaramin'

OK, these are three highly diverse families of mammals. Divergence dates within each family vary between 10.8 million years ago (big cats vs e.g. house cats - ref) to 15 Mya (colobus monkeys vs the other monkeys - ref) and 25 Mya (lamas vs camels - REF).

What else?

Wood lists Ponginae (Orang utans and their extinct close kin) as sharing common ancestry. OK, what about the other apes? Gorillinae are listed as a possible basic type (i.e. interfertile), but what are they? Apparently an arbitrary grouping of gorillas and chimps - and no-one's actually checked if they can interbreed. The Australopithicinae (Lucy & her friends & relations) are also a 'basic type' (are creationists breeding australopithecines? Insert own joke here). And what about us? Wood gives Homininae as a basic type! Now, Homininae conventionally means gorillas, chimps and humans plus extinct species such as the australopithecines, so is Wood casually saying that we humans share a common ancestor with other apes? No: the reference on which this is based shows that - to Wood & his colleagues - Homininae 'comprises but one living species' (i.e. us). I can't see the point in using terms from conventional science yet giving them a quite different (and often unstated) definition; it just causes confusion.

Let's return to the real world now. We now have access to lots of DNA sequence which shows that for the cats, the camelids and the old world monkeys, there are members within each family that are genetically more divergent from each other than are humans and chimps. Moreover, Chimps are more different from gorillas than they are from humans. Wood recognises this fact in this essay on the human and chimp genomes, but can't explain why animals within a kind should be so much more different from each other than animals that he declares to be in different kinds. Of course, he isn't going to do the intellectually honest thing and let the evidence overturn his ideological belief.

So that is how creationists do taxonomy.

* Founding member of the Baraminology Study Group, and President of same after its more media-friendly rebranding as the (creation) Biology Study Group.

Postscript:

The disappointing thing is that Wood is one of the new breed of creationists who actually do make an effort to keep up with regular evolutionary science, and he has come so close to realising that it's the only thing that makes sense. I have hopes that he'll come round eventually, but even now, he has come to hold views that flat out contradict much of what JC and Wolfsbane claim to be the creationist position. Here are some unmined and honest quotes - check for yourselves!

Evolution works - read this, it's a good one!:


The myth that all mutations are deleterious:


On human origins:


JC, Wolfsbane - time to do your homework! The creationists have moved on without you! :pac:

.

Thank you for that helpful link to our friend Wood. I've linked several of his articles to this thread before.

Yes, there is variation amongst creationists. Why would you think they differ from evolutionists in that?

man of faith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is because there is always a level of ambiguity in miracles. Most of them have no evidence to support them other than someone's personal experience which will never be enough to convince me of the supernatural because of the aforementioned flaws in human perception and the rest are just unlikely things that are attributed to god because people don't understand probability and that unlikely=/=impossible. And remember that other religions all have their miracles to prove their own gods too. As I said, show me a miracle that is totally unambiguous, that can only be explained as a miracle of god and which can be independently verified as having been done by god and I will believe. And I don't mean just something that can't be explained, I mean something that has been verified to have been done by god. This practice of attributing everything we can't currently explain to the supernatural has held humanity back for too long already.


What you mean is that anything that appears to be a contradiction can be interpreted so that it's not. If the bible could be proven there would only be one religion in the world and there wouldn't be thousands of branches of it.



Right back at ya mate. Except the difference between the two of us is that I am eager to accept a religion because they promise great things for belief but as you said a few days ago, "too much is at stake". You can't objectively look at what I'm saying, it doesn't matter how convincing someone is if you've been scared into thinking you'll burn for eternity if he convinces you.

You feel that The Bible has to be proven to you because faith is a concept that is completely foreign to you and something that you are not willing to participate in. Faith is the necessary ingredient to gain a revelational understanding of The Bible, not proof that the doubting Thomas was looking for. Faith is considered a spiritual law by Christians, and it is by this law that miracles occur.
You are trying to put God in your box of reality, and as I mentioned before, He is not limited by this. He will more than willingly agree to visiting you in this box, but not without your permission. He must respect the free will that He gave you.

Because we are programmed to make distictions between what is considered to be fact and fiction, some of us automatically put God in the same category as Santa Clause. What I find interesting though is that when our mum's and dad's told us about santa, we believed it (atleast I did and most of you atheist's - come on fess up!) but we eventually discovered to our great dissapointment that it was a white lie to make Christmas a novelty for our young growing minds. But here is what I am getting at - we started out as people of great faith by believing in a myth that didn't exist! Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying to go believe in things that are complete fictional fantasies. I'm simply drawing attention to a valid point. Social norms and secular reasoning infiltrated and poluted our thinking, and we clinged for social acceptance by following the herd. Our faith became more and more squashed. It only increases my faith, because it makes it more and more obvious exactly who the god of this world is - satan. He has worked diligently to indocrtrinate people into negativity and unbelief in all the major social institutions of this world - education, government, the media, music etc.. Some of us believed what we were told to believe, others questioned and were rebuked.
So I challenge you - Return to your innocence. If God is who says He is - omnipresent (everywhere) then encountering Him should be easy and simple. And I can assure you that it is. I have been a Christian all my life.

Even if you were satisfied that God did exist, you would still have to accept the message of His Word. After all, satan very much believes in God's existence. Jesus said 'No man comes to the Father, except through me'. If you wanted to get to know Him and understand Him, you would have to receive what His Son did for you. It is the only way.

Christianity is a promise of great things! Eternal life and all the blessings of God here in this life and that which is to come. God's will is for not one single person to be in that horrific place known as hell, but how can He contradict the way He created us by overriding our will - it would make him a liar and His Word would be invalid. Satan is the one that takes a man's soul to hell because we gave him dominion over it. God has done everything that is legal and just to reverse this - sending His Son to take our punishment. It's now up to us to receive it. If Mohummad, Buhdda or Krishna was the saviour, then why isn't the western calender centred around their time here on earth?

J C

man of faith wrote: »

I'm sure you have all heard about mark of the beast 666 and the one world governement talked about in Revelation. For the mark to be introduced, we need to have a one world government system.

And one world gov has finally arrived. The mark, is already being tested all throughout the world and will be ready to use in place of cash very soon. All the technology has been installed everywhere. The powers that be have orchestrated the global economic crash for a very specific reason - NEW WORLD ORDER. World domination by the banking cartels - Rothschilds and Rockafellas to name a few. Watch the following if freedom means something to you. THIS IS HIGH PRIORITY AND ABSOLUTELY URGENT TO WATCH!!!! THIS IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

The fall of the great American Republic, courtesy of Barack Obama.

also check out www.infowars.com

...I guess we have now arrived at the prophecy section of this thread!!!!:eek:

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Borring.

PDN? Can we have JC back pleassse?

...I never went away....and I'm here to help you ... to be Saved.

...and if 'Man of Faith' is correct you may need to be Saved ... sooner rather than later!!!!:eek::):D

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Why do you and JC keep saying things that have nothing to do with evolutionary biology?

Functional complexity is irrelevant to evolutionary biology. It is molecular information theory that is relevant. ....

...your enthusiasm for Molecular Information Theory obviously knows no bounds!!

...but unfortunately I have BAD NEWS for you.

...an intelligent input is required for ALL functional information, whether the 'carrier' is physical, chemical (AKA Molecular) or electronic!!!!:eek::eek::)