The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientist

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Genghiz Cohen
Creation Scientist

..I like it!!!!:)

....don't mess with The Rock!!!:D

Turtwig

I prefer.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

I prefer.....

....."I don't know and you don't either!"

...I didn't realise that Darwin was a Militant Agnostic and said that!!!!!:D

...although having read the 'Origin of Species' .... I can see why he may have felt that he didn't really have a clue!!!:eek:

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

Rubbish. That's like me claiming any of the scientific laws for creationism, and not allowing evolutionists to incorporate them in their models.

What are you talking about ?

We are not claiming creationists can't use x, y and z. We are saying you can't say we are using a, b and c in the definition of evolution when a, b and c are NOT in the definition of evolution.

Our definition of evolution is to show the concept we reject - the mammal to bird type of change over time. You may well claim different sorts of beak on finches shows evolution, but that is not what we mean when we speak of evolution.

Then you need to call it its proper scientific term.

Again, if you proved tomorrow that god magicked human beings into existence as we are, fully formed it would still not change the fact of evolution at all, the definition of which is "organisms change over generations".

It would change a huge number of aspects of the theory of evolution but many more aspects would be completely unaffected.

When you deny abiogenesis or evolution from a very simple organism (Unicellular) to a more complex organism (multicellular) you are not denying evolution, you are denying apart of evolution.

Disproving a common ancestor would not disprove evolution.
Disproving abiogenesis would not disprove evolution.
Disproving we evolved from a unicellular organism would not disprove evolution.

These would disprove aspects of evolution and certain evolutionary theories.

This is why I want you to use the correct terms because its confusing as hell and its very unscientific and very wrong.

Its complete nonsense.

Yes, the scientific establishment can make up definitions to suit, but that does not mean everyone is obliged to go with them.

If I define something and I claim the evidence supports my definition and then I present that evidence, then you re-define my definition a way you like which is not something I am saying and then you claim to prove that wrong, what kind of sense does that make ?

You are disproving what YOU defined. You are not disproving the original definition or the evidence.

Could you please tell us what problem you have with Pythagorean theorem.

Pythagoras wrote:

The square of the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides

Its like saying I have disproved Pythagoras because the square of the length of the hypotenuse is not equal to 3.14.

Perhaps you'd like to redefine it for us ?

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...did you read what the guy said???

...he effectively said that he was teaching a load of baloney ... until something better comes along!!!

He said it "Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Which is true for all science.

Do you think Einsteins theory of relativity is exact or an approximation ?

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

Each defines the term as they see fit. The key is answering your opponent's definition as well as presenting and defending your own.

Thats perfectly fine in a political or cultural or theological context. Science is EXACT, everything has an exact meaning. If it doesn't then it isn't science.

No, he doesn't. Abiogenesis is clearly not biological evolution and JC makes that clear. It is the origin of choice for most evolutionists, however, and it is acceptable for JC to point that out.

And I have no problem pointing it out except it is NOT PART OF EVOLUTION

You have people who accept Evolution in your own words who do NOT believe in abiogenesis.

I think his arguments have been substantial, and his use of the abiogenesis stick is valid when it deals with the presuppositions of evolutionists.

Again I have no problem with him using abiogenesis in the correct context.

Or do you deny abiogenesis is THE supposition of most evolutionists?

Of course it is but it is NOT part of Evolution.

This really intrigues me! Evolution could be true even if higher forms of life did not gradually arise out of lower forms???

The fact of Evolution is true because we can observe it.
The theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have for the physical evidence we have now.

Common ancestry etc are just parts of it.

Can you sketch me your alternate evolution?

And you see the problem, I don't know what you are asking me. Are you asking me for an explanation for the origin or life or an explanation for the diversity of life.

They are NOT the same thing.

J C

Science is INEXACT ... when it suits the Evolutionist

monosharp wrote: »

He said it "Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Which is true for all science.

...but wait a minute .... (7 minutes actually)...
...and Science is suddenly EXACT ... when it suits the SAME Evolutionist!!!

monosharp wrote: »

Science is EXACT, everything has an exact meaning. If it doesn't then it isn't science.

The reality is that Evolution is an ill-defined load of baloney ... and my definition of Evolution as 'Pondslime to Man' IS EXACTLY defined ... only you don't like the look of it!!!

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Again, if you proved tomorrow that god magicked human beings into existence as we are, fully formed it would still not change the fact of evolution at all, the definition of which is "organisms change over generations".

It would change a huge number of aspects of the theory of evolution but many more aspects would be completely unaffected.

When you deny abiogenesis or evolution from a very simple organism (Unicellular) to a more complex organism (multicellular) you are not denying evolution, you are denying apart of evolution.

Disproving a common ancestor would not disprove evolution.
Disproving abiogenesis would not disprove evolution.
Disproving we evolved from a unicellular organism would not disprove evolution.

....Houston we have a problem...
...the Evolutionist is BROKEN ... and seems to be beyond repair!!!:eek::)

monosharp

J C wrote: »

Monosharp -> When you deny abiogenesis or evolution from a very simple organism (Unicellular) to a more complex organism (multicellular) you are not denying evolution

Right JC, 4 years on this thread and you haven't answered a single question put to you.

I am not going to complicate matters, I am going to try to make this so simple even someone like you could understand it.

What is incorrect about my above statement.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....Houston we have a problem...
...the Evolutionist is BROKEN ... and seems to be beyond repair!!!:eek::)

No J C, what's broken is your understanding of evolution

Morbert

JC!! You believe in the EMPTY belief that Jesus FOuGHT and Killed the entire Roman empite with nothing but a hampster.. There is NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS!! Where are the documents proving this? Did Jesus burn them, along with the rest of rome:D:D:pac::eek::cool:

Christianity is such a broken belief.

monosharp

Morbert wrote: »

JC!! You believe in the EMPTY belief that Jesus FOuGHT and Killed the entire Roman empite with nothing but a hampster.. There is NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS!! Where are the documents proving this? Did Jesus burn them, along with the rest of rome:D:D:pac::eek::cool:

Christianity is such a broken belief.

Whats the odds they don't realise the comparison your making ?

Turtwig

monosharp wrote: »

Whats the odds they don't realise the comparison your making ?

....1 in 10^123....more than the number of atoms in the universe!!:eek::D

monosharp

Is this JC ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv5LG4vLOpk

btw: Haha check out yer man wearing the Cork jersey in the background.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg

:eek::eek::eek:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...the Evolutionist is BROKEN ... and seems to be beyond repair!!!

Sam Vimes
No J C, what's broken is your understanding of evolution.

...there seems to be very little 'evolution' left to understand ... if we are to believe Monosharp!!!:eek::pac::)

monosharp wrote: »

Again, if you proved tomorrow that god magicked human beings into existence as we are, fully formed it would still not change the fact of evolution at all, the definition of which is "organisms change over generations".

It would change a huge number of aspects of the theory of evolution but many more aspects would be completely unaffected.

When you deny abiogenesis or evolution from a very simple organism (Unicellular) to a more complex organism (multicellular) you are not denying evolution, you are denying apart of evolution.

Disproving a common ancestor would not disprove evolution.
Disproving abiogenesis would not disprove evolution.
Disproving we evolved from a unicellular organism would not disprove evolution.

...'evolution' seems to have 'disappeared' up its own metaphorical backside!!!!!:eek::)

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life?
:eek::eek::eek:

...the video clip presents some factors which indicate that the Universe is indeed 'fine tuned' .... it then presents some effects of The Fall (from the original perfection) as now found on the Earth and in the Universe ...
It then 'pulls some mega-numbers out of the air' that also appear to indicate that the spontaneous generation of life is impossible ... and then claims that the existence of 'parallel universes' might overcome the overwhwlming odds against life arising spontanously!!!

...some of the typical ideas with which Evolutionists (of all types) confuse themselves ... when they are not defining 'Evolution' so narrowly that it practically disappears!!!!:eek:

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...there seems to be very little 'evolution' left to understand ... if we are to believe Monosharp

...'evolution' seems to have 'disappeared' up its own metaphorical backside!!!!!:eek::)

When you deny abiogenesis or evolution from a very simple organism (Unicellular) to a more complex organism (multicellular) you are not denying evolution, you are denying a part of evolution.

If the multicellular organism was magicked into existence it wouldn't make any difference to evolution. It would destroy abiogenesis.

Disproving a common ancestor would not disprove evolution.

Evolution is about the diversity of life, disproving a common ancestor for all life (maybe life started twice or three times completely separate from each other or was magicked into existence as per your Harry Potter method) would not disprove the vast vast majority of Evolutionary theory.

Disproving abiogenesis would not disprove evolution.

Evolution is about the diversity of life, not the origin of life. Life could come from god, harry potter or the cookie monster. It makes no difference to evolution.

Are you going to answer my question or not.

Let me ask it again.

Monosharp -> When you deny abiogenesis or evolution from a very simple organism (Unicellular) to a more complex organism (multicellular) you are not denying evolution

Right JC, 4 years on this thread and you haven't answered a single question put to you.

I am not going to complicate matters, I am going to try to make this so simple even someone like you could understand it.

What is incorrect about my above statement.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

When you deny abiogenesis or evolution from a very simple organism (Unicellular) to a more complex organism (multicellular) you are not denying evolution, you are denying a part of evolution.

If the multicellular organism was magicked into existence it wouldn't make any difference to evolution. It would destroy abiogenesis.

Disproving a common ancestor would not disprove evolution.

Evolution is about the diversity of life, disproving a common ancestor for all life (maybe life started twice or three times completely separate from each other or was magicked into existence as per your Harry Potter method) would not disprove the vast vast majority of Evolutionary theory.

Disproving abiogenesis would not disprove evolution.

Evolution is about the diversity of life, not the origin of life. Life could come from god, harry potter or the cookie monster. It makes no difference to evolution.

Are you going to answer my question or not.

Let me ask it again.

Monosharp -> When you deny abiogenesis or evolution from a very simple organism (Unicellular) to a more complex organism (multicellular) you are not denying evolution

Right JC, 4 years on this thread and you haven't answered a single question put to you.

I am not going to complicate matters, I am going to try to make this so simple even someone like you could understand it.

What is incorrect about my above statement.

...all your statements are quite correct .... but 'evolution' ... has almost scientifically DISAPPEARED in the process!!!:D:)

Morbert

Is this JC ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv5LG4vLOpk

btw: Haha check out yer man wearing the Cork jersey in the background.

That guy was an ejit, but so was the guy arguing against him. It don't see a problem with admitting that morality is a fragile human construct.

Turtwig

Morbert wrote: »

That guy was an ejit, but so was the guy arguing against him. It don't see a problem with admitting that morality is a fragile human construct.

Typically speaking if you watch any of those Ray Comfort like videos you'll begin to suspect the atheist they're debating with.
I don't know any atheist that thinks evolution is pure pot luck. Those guys always seem to find them somehow.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...all your statements are quite correct .... but 'evolution' ... has all but scientifically DISAPPEARED in the process!!!:D:)

Evolution is DEAD ... long LIVE Creation Science!!!!:D

No, Christianity... is... ...DEAD.... Jesus said... it HIMSELF!!...!! And what about THIS from the... BiBLE?!

And the LORD said "Who amongst thee are my favourite people; Jews, Muslims, or Christians? I don't know, I guess we'll have to see who wants it more.(Stewart 20:8)


You can trust me. I'm a theologian!!! :eek::D:pac:

[edit to add] - :eek::eek::pac::pac::pac:

J C

Morbert wrote: »

No, Christianity... is... ...DEAD.... Jesus said... it HIMSELF!!...!! And what about THIS from the... BiBLE?!

And the LORD said "Who amongst thee are my favourite people; Jews, Muslims, or Christians? I don't know, I guess we'll have to see who wants it more.(Stewart 20:8)


You can trust me. I'm a theologian!!! :eek::D:pac:

[edit to add] - :eek::eek::pac::pac::pac:

... I've met quite a few 'theologians' who had even 'whackier' ideas than your ones!!!!

...just remember that Jesus (the Creator God of the Universe) LOVES YOU ... and died that YOU might LIVE.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

... I've met quite a few 'theologians' who had even 'whackier' ideas !!!!

...just remember that Jesus (the Creator God of the Universe) LOVES YOU ... and died that YOU might LIVE.

A MAN from IRAQ LOVES ME?! That I MIGHT LIVE?!?! did HE.... THreaten me :pac::eek:?

I've studied this FAKE theology for YEARS, until I learned the TRUTH about JESUS! If JESUS is GOD and ALSO the SON OF GOD then HE must..... have STRAAANGE family LOL!!:o;):D

When presented with the logic, Christians CRUMBLE before me because they HIDE from the TRUTH!:):D:eek::pac: if only YOU would see the truth too. INSTEAD you side with people who believe JESUS EXISTED AND went to AMERICA!!! And that GOD made us from PONDSLIME!!!

Efficient acceleration of cosmic rays (via the mechanism of diffusive shock acceleration) requires turbulent, amplified magnetic fields in the shock's upstream region. We present results of multidimensional particle-in-cell simulations aimed at observing the magnetic field amplification that is expected to arise from the cosmic-ray current ahead of the shock, and the impact on the properties of the upstream interstellar medium. We find that the initial structure and peak strength of the amplified field are somewhat sensitive to the choice of parameters, but that the field growth saturates in a similar manner in all cases: the back-reaction on the cosmic rays leads to modification of their rest-frame distribution and also a net transfer of momentum to the interstellar medium, substantially weakening their relative drift while also implying the development of a modified shock. The upstream medium becomes turbulent, with significant spatial fluctuations in density and velocity, the latter in particular leading to moderate upstream heating; such fluctuations will also have a strong influence on the shock structure.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

A MAN from IRAQ LOVES ME?! That I MIGHT LIVE?!?! did HE.... THreaten me :pac::eek:?

I've studied this FAKE theology for YEARS, until I learned the TRUTH about JESUS! If JESUS is GOD and ALSO the SON OF GOD then HE must..... have STRAAANGE family LOL!!:o;):D

When presented with the logic, Christians CRUMBLE before me because they HIDE from the TRUTH!:):D:eek::pac: if only YOU would see the truth too. INSTEAD you side with people who believe JESUS EXISTED AND went to AMERICA!!! And that GOD made us from PONDSLIME!!!

Efficient acceleration of cosmic rays (via the mechanism of diffusive shock acceleration) requires turbulent, amplified magnetic fields in the shock's upstream region. We present results of multidimensional particle-in-cell simulations aimed at observing the magnetic field amplification that is expected to arise from the cosmic-ray current ahead of the shock, and the impact on the properties of the upstream interstellar medium. We find that the initial structure and peak strength of the amplified field are somewhat sensitive to the choice of parameters, but that the field growth saturates in a similar manner in all cases: the back-reaction on the cosmic rays leads to modification of their rest-frame distribution and also a net transfer of momentum to the interstellar medium, substantially weakening their relative drift while also implying the development of a modified shock. The upstream medium becomes turbulent, with significant spatial fluctuations in density and velocity, the latter in particular leading to moderate upstream heating; such fluctuations will also have a strong influence on the shock structure.

...so this is what believing in Evolution eventually does to you!!!!:)

....Houston we have a problem...
...the Evolutionist is BROKEN ... and his brain has gone into meltdown!!!:D

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...so this is what believing in Evolution eventually does to you!!!!:)

....Houston we have a problem...
...the Evolutionist is BROKEN ... and his brain has gone into meltdown!!!:D

This is... EXAC...TLY what a JESUSIST would say. You're right I did meltdown WHEN I learned the TRUTH about the LIE that was Christianity. You will too, but you need the COURAGE to ACCEPT IT!

"APRIL FOOL"(Luke 4:21)

[edit]-THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE HAS EVER BELIEVED IN JESUS CHRIST!!! IT'S NEVER BEEN OBSERVED!

J C

Morbert wrote: »

This is... EXAC...TLY what a JESUSIST would say. You're right I did meltdown WHEN I learned the TRUTH about the LIE that was Christianity. You will too, but you need the COURAGE to ACCEPT IT!
"APRIL FOOL"(Luke 4:21)

[edit]-THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE HAS EVER BELIEVED IN JESUS CHRIST!!! IT'S NEVER BEEN OBSERVED!

...that's right .... blame it all on the Jesuits!!!!

....and engage in dislexia ... at the same time!!!!


I just LOVE that smiley!!!

...and full marks for the 'smokescreen' that you are trying to erect around the bottomless pit that Monosharp has dug for 'evolution'!!!

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...and full marks for the 'smokescreen' that you are trying to erect around the bottomless pit that Monosharp has dug for 'evolution'!!!

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species

The basis of evolution is the genes that are passed on from generation to generation; these produce an organism's inherited traits. These traits vary within populations, with organisms showing heritable differences (variation) in their traits. Evolution itself is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation, and processes that make variants either become more common or rare. New variation arises in two main ways: either from mutations in genes, or from the transfer of genes between populations and between species. New combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination, which can increase variation between organisms.

Does Evolution require a common ancestor for all life ? NO
Does Evolution require an explanation for the origin of life ? NO
Does Evolution require that Unicellular organisms evolved into multicellular organisms ? NO

Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Heredity ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Variation ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Variation ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Mutation ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Genetic recombination and Sexual reproduction ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Genetic recombination and Population genetics ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Gene flow ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of natural selection and genetic drift. ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of adaptation. ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Co-Evolution. ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Co-operation ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Speciation ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Extinction ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Extinction ?
NO

Origin Of Life.
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.

Common descent
All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

You are talking rubbish JC, you have talked nothing but rubbish since entering this thread and you continue to talk nothing but rubbish.

Answer my question. Show some proof for once or at least try to debate it like a normal human being instead of a fundamentalist.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

This is... EXAC...TLY what a JESUSIST would say. You're right I did meltdown WHEN I learned the TRUTH about the LIE that was Christianity. You will too, but you need the COURAGE to ACCEPT IT!

"APRIL FOOL"(Luke 4:21)

[edit]-THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE HAS EVER BELIEVED IN JESUS CHRIST!!! IT'S NEVER BEEN OBSERVED!

Humm... I think you need to refresh yourself on the finer points of the charter.