The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My fear has nothing to do with love and nothing to do with any god that may exist.

... then why don't you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem is that people's devotion to their gods blinds them to reality and allows them to justify the unjustifiable.

... there are indeed many 'Gods' ... and they come in many shapes and sizes ... but there is only one true and loving God ... the Creator God of the Bible, AKA Jesus Christ.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Unlike real scientists they don't publish papers, they just declare over and over again that they're being censored and hope no one notices that they're not producing anything for the scientific community to censor. Your "giant" of creationism Behe wanted the definition of science itself changed to something so broad that even he admitted that under his definition astrology would be classed as science

...I would have thought that the evidentially challenged notion that muck evolved into Man with nothing added but time ... would give astrology a 'run for its money' as an unfounded belief !!:D
...while the Intelligent Design of living organisms is obvious to anybody not completely in denial.:D

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

J C, I have to admit it really terrifies me that there are enough gobsh!tes in the world that are stupid enough to swallow the sh!t your shovelling to have a seriously damaging effect on the advancement of our species. They won't be taken in if they research it in any depth mind you because it's all nonsense but most people don't bother doing that anad just have a vague idea that you have to reject evolution to be a christian. People such as yourself make it so much easier for atheists to argue that religion is bad for the world, just look at the lengths people are willing to go to to protect their precious beliefs.

After 4 years you're still here spouting the same old bullsh!t. I hate to tell you but the only person you're fooling is yourself, and unfortunately wolfsbane.

Wolfsbane was a convinced creationist long before he encountered JC.

But for all his labours, long-suffering and patience in presenting the truth about origins, I am deeply thankful.

If it is part of God's means of leading you to saving faith, you too will thank him. But if you depart this life still in your sins, JC's witness will help condemn you on Judgement Day.

wolfsbane

monosharp said:

Anyways for the Christians here, I've been quietly reading this thread but I do have a question.

What do you think of other 'types' of creationism ? What I mean is, Islamic or other religions versions of creationism.

Do you think that the islamic creationists and the christian creationists for example have common ground ?

JC put it well. We all have common ground, Evolutionists, Old Earthers and Young Earthers. The debates are on the parts on which we differ.

For christian creationists, is the literal account of creation as depicted in genesis 100% right or is there room for differences ?

YECers differ among ourselves on details and mechanisms - what layers were laid down post-flood as opposed to pre-flood, for example. Some who agree with us on a recent creation of the biosphere differ with us on the idea of a gap in Genesis 1:1 - that there was a former creation that perished before Adam's world was brought to life.

e.g > Is there a core set of beliefs that is important such as 'God did it' and the other beliefs '6 days', 'made man before woman' etc less important and up for interpretation ?

No. The 6 day scenario cannot be got around when it deals with Adam & Eve and the biosphere.

Is genesis as a whole 100% literally true or are creationists ok with just believing 'God created us' and leaving the when/how/out of what/talking snakes etc to one side ?

We go with the details - if it says the snake communicated with Eve, then that happened. If it says it took 6 days for all to be finished, it took 6 days.

The Mad Hatter

I wonder if J C will understand why I'm posting this here. Probably not.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wolfsbane was a convinced creationist long before he encountered JC.

But for all his labours, long-suffering and patience in presenting the truth about origins, I am deeply thankful.

If it is part of God's means of leading you to saving faith, you too will thank him. But if you depart this life still in your sins, JC's witness will help condemn you on Judgement Day.

If there is a god I can only imagine that he will not be too pleased with J C. Whatever scientific evidence there might be for the god of creationism, these ideas of complex specified information and irreducible complexity are not it, they're both nonsense and anyone who scratches the surface can see that. There might well be a god but J C's tireless persistence in spouting the same nonsense over and over again no matter how many times it's debunked combined with things like deliberate quote mining, even misinterpreting the words of a dead man in his sig after the man explicitly clarified that creationists had taken the wrong meaning from it, have done more to damage the case for the christian god as you understand it than any evolutionary scientist. If anything his antics are turning people away from what you see as the true god and I'm sure many christians on this forum would agree with me

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If there is a god I can only imagine that he will not be too pleased with J C. Whatever scientific evidence there might be for the god of creationism, these ideas of complex specified information and irreducible complexity are not it, they're both nonsense and anyone who scratches the surface can see that. There might well be a god but J C's tireless persistence in spouting the same nonsense over and over again no matter how many times it's debunked combined with things like deliberate quote mining, even misinterpreting the words of a dead man in his sig after the man explicitly clarified that creationists had taken the wrong meaning from it, have done more to damage the case for the christian god as you understand it than any evolutionary scientist. If anything his antics are turning people away from what you see as the true god and I'm sure many christians on this forum would agree with me

We differ on the value of JC's labours, but aside from that I'm afraid the only god you would find consistent with your understanding of origins cannot be the God of the Bible. One or the other must stand.

If we are wrong about the science and continue so for the rest of our lives, we've wasted a bit of time in debating.

If you are wrong about it and continue so for the rest of your life, you will die in your sins and face God without excuse. And JC's words will haunt you forever. That's a good reason for strong rather than easy or knee-jerk reactions.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wolfsbane was a convinced creationist long before he encountered JC.

Weren't you a convinced Creationist before you knew anything about biology and science?

Which speaks a lot to your close mindedness with regard to this subject

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Weren't you a convinced Creationist before you knew anything about biology and science?

Which speaks a lot to your close mindedness with regard to this subject

Well, I did my Junior Certs in both before I was a Christian, but yes, I held to Biblical Creation before I went further into the scientific arguments.

But I never said I was open to evolution. That does not mean, however, that I would defend a scientific case for creation if I did not find the argument compelling. I would just admit the science doesn't seem to fit and wait for further finds to make the fit.

Thankfully I'm at ease, having observed the weighty scientific case for Creation.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

We differ on the value of JC's labours, but aside from that I'm afraid the only god you would find consistent with your understanding of origins cannot be the God of the Bible. One or the other must stand.

If we are wrong then J C and other creationists would be far better off coming up with something new to try to convince us. If your god is real then there must be evidence everywhere but by clinging to the long debunked ideas of irreducible complexity and complex specified information they make evolutionists even more hardened in their stance. If I am wrong then it should be trivial to show that I am wrong but the reality is that it is trivial to show that the nonsense trotted out by creationists is wrong. They might well be right about the question of god but they are most certainly not right in the way they abuse science to further their agenda. If they are right then it is entirely coincidental because none of the pseudo-science they try to pass off shows them to be right

wolfsbane wrote: »

If we are wrong about the science and continue so for the rest of our lives, we've wasted a bit of time in debating.

If you are wrong about it and continue so for the rest of your life, you will die in your sins and face God without excuse. And JC's words will haunt you forever. That's a good reason for strong rather than easy or knee-jerk reactions.

Ah Pascal's wager, one of the most flawed pieces of thinking ever to come from a human mind. This video deals with just some of the problems with it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9WRG4e6m2s

Three of the main problems summarised:

1. I cannot "choose" to believe something, I either find it convincing or I don't and if I don't find it convincing all I can do is lie to myself, other people and god and claim I believe but of course an omnipotent god would see through that
2. It assumes there are only two options, atheism and creationism when in fact there are thousands of possible gods and you are only very slightly better off than me. If you want to follow the "safe bet" logic you'd be better off following all world religions. It's like the difference between buying a lotto ticket and not. If you don't buy one you won't win and you keep your €4 but if you do buy one you still only have a very tiny chance of winning.
3. It assumes there is no "cost" in spending your entire life dedicated to a false god

edit: although Pascal's wager does go some way to explaining why so many people are prepared to swallow the sh!t creationists are shovelling: they're afraid not to

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

If we are wrong then J C and other creationists would be far better off coming up with something new to try to convince us. If your god is real then there must be evidence everywhere but by clinging to the long debunked ideas of irreducible complexity and complex specified information they make evolutionists even more hardened in their stance. If I am wrong then it should be trivial to show that I am wrong but the reality is that it is trivial to show that the nonsense trotted out by creationists is wrong. They might well be right about the question of god but they are most certainly not right in the way they abuse science to further their agenda. If they are right then it is entirely coincidental because none of the pseudo-science they try to pass off shows them to be right

If it was all pseudo-science you would have a point. But if it's just science you don't like and it's easier to go with the flow of the atheist establishment...

You need to examine your heart to see how honest you are being with yourself.

Ah Pascal's wager, one of the most flawed pieces of thinking ever to come from a human mind. This video deals with just some of the problems with it:

Three of the main problems summarised:
I cannot "choose" to believe something, I either find it convincing or I don't and if I don't find it convincing all I can do is lie to myself, other people and god and claim I believe but of course an omnipotent god would see through that

I agree that pretending to believe is pointless. All we ask is that you seriously ask the big questions about life and its purpose. All who sincerely seek will find.

It assumes there are only two options, atheism and creationism when in fact there are thousands of possible gods and you are only very slightly better off than me. If you want to follow the "safe bet" logic you'd be better off following all world religions. It's like the difference between buying a lotto ticket and not. If you don't buy one you won't win and you keep your €4 but if you do buy one you still only have a very tiny chance of winning.

The difference is I have found the Truth, so no longer need to search for it among all the other religions. I know, I do not suppose, for God has given me that knowledge.

It assumes there is no "cost" in spending your entire life dedicated to a false god

True, if Christianity is false I have deprived myself of much the only pleasures that are on offer - sexual conquests, riches, power, revenge and have exposed myself to ridicule and harassment.

In compensation I have lived in a deluded state of good feelings about my purpose and future, and enjoyed the society of many other similarly deluded folk whom I love. On top of all that, by coincidence of course, I have had many answers to my prayers and deliverances from bad circumstances.

edit: although Pascal's wager does go some way to explaining why so many people are prepared to swallow the sh!t creationists are shovelling: they're afraid not to

Fear is a rational response to perceived danger. Only a fool ignores it.
The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.” Psalm 14:1a

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

If it was all pseudo-science you would have a point. But if it's just science you don't like and it's easier to go with the flow of the atheist establishment...

The mere fact that Michael Behe wanted to redefine science should prove to you that it's not science. He acknowledged under oath that his definition of science would also include astrology remember.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You need to examine your heart to see how honest you are being with yourself.
...
Fear is a rational response to perceived danger. Only a fool ignores it.
The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.” Psalm 14:1a

You also need to ask if you're being honest with yourself. You need to ask yourself if Pascal's wager plays any part whatsoever in your motivation for belief and if so, you're believing out of fear and while fear is a rational response to danger, it is not a reason to believe in a god, especially a god that's supposed to love you. A loving god would not put people in danger simply for not believing that a Jewish guy raised from the dead 2000 years ago

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree that pretending to believe is pointless. All we ask is that you seriously ask the big questions about life and its purpose. All who sincerely seek will find.

Except that pretty much no one except people who were brought up to be creationists ever see the "truth" in it. It seems no one ever sincerely seeks. Odd that

wolfsbane wrote: »

In compensation I have lived in a deluded state of good feelings about my purpose and future, and enjoyed the society of many other similarly deluded folk whom I love. On top of all that, by coincidence of course, I have had many answers to my prayers and deliverances from bad circumstances.

Living in a society is great but you don't have to believe in a god to do that. I also have good feelings about my purpose and future among similarly non-deluded folk whom I love.

Also, I can guarantee you, and numerous studies have shown, that you get exactly the same success rate praying to a carton of milk as praying to god. Trying praying for an amputee's arm to regrow and see how far you get.

I can already you picture you thinking to yourself "that's not how it works" and that's because how it works is people learn to only pray for things that could have happened anyway so if they don't happen they can say it wasn't god's will and if they do they can thank god for them. Well I'm sorry to tell you mate but those things would have happened anyway and even if they wouldn't have, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a god that would answer a prayer for example for someone to get a promotion while ignoring a prayer to be cured of cancer.

wolfsbane wrote: »

True, if Christianity is false I have deprived myself of much the only pleasures that are on offer - sexual conquests, riches, power, revenge and have exposed myself to ridicule and harassment.

Christianity also deprives people of things that there is nothing wrong with, such as people who spend their lives tormented because they're gay, something over which they have no control and which harms no one.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The difference is I have found the Truth, so no longer need to search for it among all the other religions. I know, I do not suppose, for God has given me that knowledge.

Except that I can point to millions of people who know that their god is real with the same certainty that you know yours is. You can't all be right but you can all be wrong and the only way you can be that certain is if you believe yourself to be infallible.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The mere fact that Michael Behe wanted to redefine science should prove to you that it's not science. He acknowledged under oath that his definition of science would also include astrology remember.

...like I have already said ... I would have thought that the evidentially challenged notion that muck evolved into Man with nothing added but time ... would give astrology a 'run for its money' as an unfounded belief !!
...while the Intelligent Design of living organisms is obvious to anybody not completely in denial.:D

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You also need to ask if you're being honest with yourself. You need to ask yourself if Pascal's wager plays any part whatsoever in your motivation for belief and if so, you're believing out of fear and while fear is a rational response to danger, it is not a reason to believe in a god, especially a god that's supposed to love you. A loving god would not put people in danger simply for not believing that a Jewish guy raised from the dead 2000 years ago

...He is a God of Justice as well as mercy ... the choice is yours ... please choose His mercy ... before it's too late!!!:)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If there is a god I can only imagine that he will not be too pleased with J C. Whatever scientific evidence there might be for the god of creationism, these ideas of complex specified information and irreducible complexity are not it, they're both nonsense and anyone who scratches the surface can see that. There might well be a god but J C's tireless persistence in spouting the same nonsense over and over again no matter how many times it's debunked combined with things like deliberate quote mining, even misinterpreting the words of a dead man in his sig after the man explicitly clarified that creationists had taken the wrong meaning from it, have done more to damage the case for the christian god as you understand it than any evolutionary scientist. If anything his antics are turning people away from what you see as the true god and I'm sure many christians on this forum would agree with me

....complex specified information and irreducible complexity are real and scientifically valid phenomena ... so please have a go at addressing this post. if you don't believe me:-

Originally Posted by J C
Biochemical cascades are found throughout living organisms peforming life-critical closely co-ordinated functions with other equally life-critical cascades. Some of these cascades involve hundreds of different molecules ... and it is observed that removing even one molecule or having a molecule in the 'wrong' place in the cascade destroys or severely compromises the function of the cascade, thereby resulting in the death of the organism !!

To take a simple example, let us look at a life-critical cascade consisting of just four molecules (A, B, C and D). It is observed that if A or B or C or D is individually removed then the other three molecules are incapable of maintaining the cascade - and the organism dies ... so please tell me HOW this life-critical cascade could be formed in a step by step fashion if A, B & C - or any other permutation of three of the four molecules is non-functional thereby ALWAYS resulting in the death of the organism?


...Natural Selection can only select when there is something 'useful' to select ... and non-intelligently created processes (like random mutations) are INCAPABLE of producing any 'useful' trait, for NS to select...
....because the useless 'combinatorial space' is effectively infinite for even relatively small molecular combinations ... and the functional 'combinatorial space' is observed to often only be one combnation!!!

...and if you are arguing that A, B, C & D can 'safely' develop in the background, by trial and error, because the life-critical function is already carried out by F, G, H & I - this begs the question as to how the F, G, H & I life-critical cascade developed in the first place.
...equally NS cannot 'favour' organisms developing the A, B, C & D cascade because its development would be 'masked' by the already functional F, G, H & I cascade ... and it also has no functionality until A, B, C & D are all present ... so developing it can ONLY be by pure chance ... with no 'help' from NS!!!!
...and developing it is therefore an 'all or nothing event' with the added problem, that even when it is developed, it may confer no advantage because it is eclipsed by an equivalent life-critical function already being provided by F,G H & I.

Direct Creation can provide such luxuries and redundancies ... but 'blind chance' cannot do so because the useless 'combinatorial space' is effectively infinite and it will therefore overwhelm any non-intelligently directed process.

... so how did irreducibly complex biochemical cascades come about...if not by Direct Creation

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...like I have already said ... I would have thought that the evidentially challenged notion that muck evolved into Man with nothing added but time ... would give astrology a 'run for its money' as an unfounded belief !!
...while the Intelligent Design of living organisms is obvious to anybody not completely in denial.:D

You might think that but if creationism/ID was science then your "giant" of intelligent design wouldn't have tried to get science redefined to include it

J C wrote: »

...He is a God of Justice as well as mercy ... the choice is yours ... please choose His mercy ... before it's too late!!!:)

Yeah forget about the murders and adulterers and rapists and child molesters and thieves etc etc etc etc. They're all deserving of eternal bliss. The truly evil people, the only ones deserving of eternal punishment are the people who don't think a story about a man who raised from the dead is more plausible than one about a man who was visited by an angel. Those bastards :mad:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....complex specified information and irreducible complexity are real and scientifically valid phenomena ... so please have a go at addressing this post. if you don't believe me:-

Why do you keep asking me to address that! I've already addressed it by saying that Irreducible complexity, the basis for that post, is nonsense and has been shown to be nonsense over and over and over again on this thread and in the scientific community. No matter how many times you ask that question you will get the same answer because the reason why it is wrong is the same the hundredth time you ask as it was the first time.

Turtwig

JC, I'm accepting your argument by throwing you a bone if you like.
So is God Irreducibly Complex?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I never said I was open to evolution. That does not mean, however, that I would defend a scientific case for creation if I did not find the argument compelling.

But by your own criteria you don't know the scientific case for creation well enough to make that assertion.

You believe Creationists not because they have presented a compelling scientific argument (since you wouldn't know the standards required for such a thing, as you are quick to point out when ever challenged on the "science" you present here in support of Creationism), but simply because they agree with the position you already deciding before hand must be true.

You can't have it both ways Wolfsbane. You can't hide behind the claim of ignorance of science and the scientific method when pushed to defend Creationism (as you say you leave that to JC), yet claim that you know enough about science and the scientific method to find Creationism scientifically compelling.

It rings totally hallow. You agree with them simply because they say what you have already decided must be true.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You might think that but if creationism/ID was science then your "giant" of intelligent design wouldn't have tried to get science redefined to include it

...science involves the sytematic and objective evaluation of physical evidence ... Creation Scientists are happy to objectively follow the physical evidence wherever it may lead ... the Materialists, however, want to eliminate all of the physical evidence for the actions of God from scientific evaluation. The Materialists are therefore not the objective unemotive detached people they would like everyone to believe they are!!!
...indeed their occasional emotional outbursts on this thread amply proves this to be true!!!

...The 'ostrich' approach by Materialists to the scientific evaluation of the evidence for God is understandable, as they could not reasonably maintain their Atheistic beliefs, if they didn't engage in such denial!!!!!!
... but the Theists who also join the Materialists in blindly thrusting their heads into the 'sands of denial' of the physical evidence for God, are a real puzzle!!!!:pac::):D

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah forget about the murders and adulterers and rapists and child molesters and thieves etc etc etc etc. They're all deserving of eternal bliss. The truly evil people, the only ones deserving of eternal punishment are the people who don't think a story about a man who raised from the dead is more plausible than one about a man who was visited by an angel.

...you are confusing crime and sin.
The crimes you listed are committed against other Humans ... while sins are comitted against God ... and the only person who can forgive sin is therefore God.
His justice demands retribution for sin ... but His Grace provides forgiveness to all who believe on Him and repent!!!

We are ALL sinners ... and thankfully, only a small minority are criminals!!!!

....but as far as God is concerned ... the critical aspect is that we are all sinners in need of salvation ... and He will save any criminal sinner or any non-criminal sinner who comes before Him in repentance!!!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why do you keep asking me to address that! .

...the reason I am asking you to address it is that the post PROVES Irreducible Complexity to be true

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I've already addressed it by saying that Irreducible complexity, the basis for that post, is nonsense and has been shown to be nonsense over and over and over again on this thread and in the scientific community.

...you haven't addressed my post ... and all the handwaving in the world won't save your blushes!!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

JC, I'm accepting your argument by throwing you a bone if you like.
So is God Irreducibly Complex?

...God is Infinitely Complex ... and His Infinite Complexity is Irreducible!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...science involves the sytematic and objective evaluation of physical evidence ... Creation Scientists are happy to objectively follow the physical evidence wherever it may lead

Except that Michael Behe wanted to redefine science so that ID could be included, which proves the above false.

J C wrote: »

...you are confusing crime and sin.
Crimes are committed against other Humans ... while sins are comitted against God ... and the only person who can forgive sin is therefore God.
His justice demands retribution for sin ... but His Grace provides forgiveness to all who believe on Him and repent!!!

We are ALL sinners ... and thankfully, only a small minority are criminals!!!!

....but as far as God is concerned ... the critical aspect is that we are all sinners in need of salvation ... and He will save any criminal sinner or any non-criminal sinner who comes before Him in repentance!!!

Then you'd think that he'd appear before us and tell us to repent rather than leaving us nothing but one of thousands of old books and telling us that we have to believe in it or burn. I honestly don't understand what is considered so virtuous about bringing yourself to believe one old story over all others.

J C wrote: »

...the reason I am asking you to address it is that the post PROVES Irreducible Complexity to be true

Except that it doesn't

J C wrote: »

...God is Infinitely Complex ... and His Infinite Complexity is Irreducible!!!:D

He must have been intelligently designed so

monosharp

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He must have been intelligently designed so

I have irrefutable proof that the designer was designed, I have no evidence to back up my claim except all the scientific studies carried out by scienmatologists who hide their studies for fear of having their meds tripled by their doctors.

You have to accept that the designer was designed because where else would he come from ? Its 100% irrefutable scientific fact! :pac::P:confused::eek::rolleyes::D:)

The Mad Hatter

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then you'd think that he'd appear before us and tell us to repent rather than leaving us nothing but one of thousands of old books and telling us that we have to believe in it or burn. I honestly don't understand what is considered so virtuous about bringing yourself to believe one old story over all others.

But if you really believe that [insert religion name] will reveal the truth, and seek it with your heart, then you'll discover that it is the truth and all others are false. And obviously no-one could feel the same way about [other religion] as you do about [first religion], because it's so profound that it could be no delusion.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...science involves the sytematic and objective evaluation of physical evidence ... Creation Scientists are happy to objectively follow the physical evidence wherever it may lead ... the Materialists, however, want to eliminate all of the physical evidence for the actions of God from scientific evaluation.

Sam Vimes
Except that Michael Behe wanted to redefine science so that ID could be included, which proves the above false.

...NO ... Prof Michael Behe has rejected the Materialistic perversion of science to their own ends ... and he now scientifically evaluates the physical evidence for the Intelligent Design of living systems!!!

wrote:

Sam Vimes
Then you'd think that he'd (GOD) appear before us and tell us to repent rather than leaving us nothing but one of thousands of old books and telling us that we have to believe in it or burn. I honestly don't understand what is considered so virtuous about bringing yourself to believe one old story over all others.

...He did so 2,000 years ago ... and He will come again in Justice, at the end of time.
In between, we are lucky to be living in a period of His Grace...

....and the reason why God doesn't appear before us is because He isn't at our 'beck and call' ... and even if He did appear, or performed miracles, many would still use their free-will to reject Him!!!
Lu 16:19 ¶ There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...NO ... Prof Michael Behe has rejected the Materialistic perversion of science to their own ends ... and he now scientifically evaluates the physical evidence for the Intelligent Design of living systems!!!

The material evidence, you mean?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...the reason I am asking you to address it is that the post PROVES Irreducible Complexity to be true

Sam Vimes
Except that it doesn't

...so why don't you try refuting my post then???

...and stop the 'handwaving' ... and denial!!!!:eek::D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...God is Infinitely Complex ... and His Infinite Complexity is Irreducible!!!

Sam Vimes
He must have been intelligently designed so

...as God is infinitely complex ... and a doubly eternal being ... He couldn't logically be Created ... and God therefore wasn't Intelligently Designed either!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...NO ... Prof Michael Behe has rejected the Materialistic perversion of science to their own ends ... and he now scientifically evaluates the physical evidence for the Intelligent Design of living systems!!!

The Mad Hatter
The material evidence, you mean?

...material evidence ... physical evidence ... whatever!!!:D

...and isn't it quite ironic that the so-called Materialists are refusing to scientifically evaluate the material evidence for the actions of God ... and it is the Theists who are ones who are really going where the material evidence is leading!!

Ps 19:1 ¶ The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
7 ¶ The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.
12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
(KJV)

Turtwig

If God is infinitely and irreducibly complex as you claim. Why isn't there a need for a designer for God?

J C

monosharp wrote: »

I have irrefutable proof that the designer was designed, I have no evidence to back up my claim except all the scientific studies carried out by scienmatologists who hide their studies for fear of having their meds tripled by their doctors.

You have to accept that the designer was designed because where else would he come from ? Its 100% irrefutable scientific fact! :pac::P:confused::eek::rolleyes::D:)

...your post is 100% unfounded and illogical 'baloney' ... just like the rest of Evolutionism!!!!!:D:)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

If God is infinitely and irreducibly complex as you claim. Why isn't there a need for a designer for God?

...not only is there no need for a designer for God, there is no possibility that such an entity could exist ... because there is no Intelligence capable of designing an infinitely complex entity, which is what God is.:)

...so it all stops ... and starts ... with the Creator God of the Bible!!!:D